mcp-google-sheets

copy_sheet

Destructive

Copies a sheet from one Google spreadsheet to another. Provide source and destination spreadsheet IDs and sheet names to duplicate the sheet.

Instructions

Copy a sheet from one spreadsheet to another.

Args: src_spreadsheet: Source spreadsheet ID src_sheet: Source sheet name dst_spreadsheet: Destination spreadsheet ID dst_sheet: Destination sheet name

Returns: Result of the 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": {
      "src_spreadsheet": "<src_spreadsheet>",
      "src_sheet": "<src_sheet>",
      "dst_spreadsheet": "<dst_spreadsheet>",
      "dst_sheet": "<dst_sheet>"
    },
    "name": "copy_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`src_spreadsheet`	Yes
`src_sheet`	Yes
`dst_spreadsheet`	Yes
`dst_sheet`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations include destructiveHint=true, but the description does not clarify what is destructive (e.g., overwriting destination). It also omits side effects like whether the source remains unchanged.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded with purpose, followed by parameter descriptions in a structured docstring format. Every line adds value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the minimal purpose and parameters but omits important context such as error handling, behavior on duplicate destination names, or prerequisites like spreadsheet IDs.

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 description coverage is 0%, but the description lists each parameter with a short description (e.g., 'Source spreadsheet ID'), adding some meaning beyond schema titles. However, it lacks details like data types or validation.

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 (Copy) and resource (sheet from one spreadsheet to another), differentiating it from related siblings like move_sheet and duplicate_sheet.

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 over alternatives such as duplicate_sheet or move_sheet. The description lacks context for selection.

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