mcp-google-sheets

add_filter

Destructive

Add a basic auto-filter to a specified range in a Google Sheet to enable data filtering and analysis.

Instructions

Add a basic filter (auto-filter) to a range.

Args: spreadsheet_id: The ID of the spreadsheet sheet: Sheet/tab name range: A1 notation range (e.g., 'A1:E100')

Returns: Result of the filter operation

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>",
      "sheet": "<sheet>",
      "range": "<range>"
    },
    "name": "add_filter"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide destructiveHint=true, but description adds no context about what is destroyed (e.g., existing filters) or side effects. Does not exceed annotation value.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Short and direct, purpose is first. Includes args and returns. Efficient but could be more structured.

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?

Missing prerequisites, behavior when filter already exists, or output details. Output schema exists but description's return line is vague. Incomplete for a mutation tool with 3 required params.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds format for 'range' (A1 notation). Other parameters lack additional meaning beyond names. Partial compensation.

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?

Clearly states the action 'add' and resource 'basic filter' with scope 'to a range'. Distinguishes from siblings like 'add_conditional_format' or 'add_pivot_table'.

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 this tool versus alternatives like 'sort_range' or 'add_conditional_format'. No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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