Retrieve data from a specified cell range in a Google Sheet by providing the spreadsheet ID and range name, enabling direct access to sheet contents for further processing.
Reads data from a specified range in a Google Sheet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| range_name | Yes | ||
| spreadsheet_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The verb 'Reads' implies a non-destructive operation, but nothing else is disclosed: no return format, error behavior, or range syntax expectations. Beyond the inherent safety signal, the description adds no behavioral context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded and no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple 2-parameter tool, though its brevity edges toward under-specification, which is separately penalized in other dimensions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite the tool being simple, there are no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter schema descriptions, so this one sentence carries the entire informational burden. It leaves the return shape, range syntax, and error behavior unspecified, and an agent would frequently need to guess at these details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It partially does: 'a specified range' maps to range_name and 'Google Sheet' maps to spreadsheet_id, giving both parameters some conceptual grounding that the bare schema lacks. However, it omits format details an agent needs, such as A1 notation for range_name and whether spreadsheet_id expects a URL or raw ID.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Reads') plus a clear resource ('data from a specified range in a Google Sheet'). It differentiates cleanly from its siblings: reading cell data vs listing sheets (list_sheets) vs writing cells (write_cells). An agent can tell this tool apart without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use read_cells versus list_sheets or write_cells. The read/write distinction is only implied by the verb, and there are no explicit conditions, exclusions, or mention of scenarios where a sibling is preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.