google-workspace-mcp

sheets_write

Writes data to a Google Sheet using a 2D array. Specify spreadsheet ID, range, and values to update cells in one call.

Instructions

Write values to a Google Sheet. Values is a 2D array like [['Name','Age'],['Alice',30]].

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": {
      "spreadsheet_id": "<spreadsheet_id>",
      "range": "<range>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`range`	Yes
`values`	Yes
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the format of values but does not state whether this overwrites existing data, how the range is interpreted, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a write operation.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is succinct, with the core action in the first sentence and a helpful example in the second. No superfluous information, and every word serves a purpose.

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?

Given the tool has three required parameters and no annotations, the description is under-specified. It omits critical operational details like range syntax and overwrite behavior, making it difficult for an agent to use correctly without additional information. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these usage gaps.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The description adds meaning to the 'values' parameter with a concrete 2D array example, which is helpful given 0% schema description coverage. However, it does not explain the format of 'range' (e.g., 'Sheet1!A1:B2') or how 'spreadsheet_id' should be specified (ID vs. URL), so compensation is partial.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool writes values to a Google Sheet with a specific verb and resource. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool sheets_append, which also writes values, so it loses a point for not distinguishing between overwriting and appending.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sheets_append or sheets_clear. The context of use and exclusions are entirely absent, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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

Deploy Server