mcp-google-sheets

add_comment

Destructive

Add comments to a Google Sheet, optionally anchored to a specific cell. Provide spreadsheet ID, comment text, and cell reference for targeted feedback.

Instructions

Add a comment to a spreadsheet. Optionally anchor it to a specific cell.

Args: spreadsheet_id: The ID of the spreadsheet content: The comment text anchor_cell: Cell reference in 'Sheet1!A1' format. If omitted, adds a file-level comment.

Returns: The created comment

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>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "add_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes
`content`	Yes
`anchor_cell`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Adds the optional anchoring behavior and return value. Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so description does not need to repeat that, and it adds context about comment placement.

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?

Three focused sentences with args listed. Front-loaded main action. No redundant words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Covers core behavior, optional parameter, and return. Given output schema exists, return explanation is sufficient. Lacks potential restrictions or side effects, but overall adequate for a simple create tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

With 0% schema coverage, the description compensates fully: explains spreadsheet_id, content, anchor_cell format and its effect when omitted. This adds vital meaning beyond schema types.

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 'Add a comment to a spreadsheet', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_comments and resolve_comment by implying creation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explains when to use anchor_cell vs file-level comment. However, no explicit guidance on when to use this tool over other comment-related siblings.

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