Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gws-mcp

gws-mcp

by samuel-stidham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

sheets_write

Write data to a specified A1 range in a Google Sheet, or append values as new rows for quick updates.

Instructions

Write values to an A1 range, or append them as new rows.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "spreadsheet_id": "<spreadsheet_id>",
      "a1_range": "<a1_range>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appendNo
valuesYes
accountYes
a1_rangeYes
spreadsheet_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations provided; description only says 'write' and 'append' without detailing behavioral traits like overwrite behavior, row creation, or permission needs. For a mutation tool, this lacks disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise (one short sentence) but front-loads the main action. However, it omits critical details, making it acceptable but not optimally informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite having an output schema, the description lacks completeness for a write tool: no mention of error conditions, append behavior details, or prerequisites. Five parameters with four required are only vaguely addressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but description only names 'A1 range' and 'values' implicitly. It does not explain the format of a1_range, meaning of append (true/false), or structure of values, leaving agents to infer from schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Write values') and the resource ('an A1 range' or 'append them as new rows'), distinguishing it from the only sibling sheets tool 'sheets_read' which is for reading.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use write vs append, or when to avoid this tool. With no sibling write tools, the omission is less critical but still a gap for an agent deciding between operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools