mcp-google-sheets

create_sheet

Destructive

Add a new sheet tab to an existing Google Spreadsheet by providing the spreadsheet ID and a title for the new sheet.

Instructions

Create a new sheet tab in an existing Google Spreadsheet.

Args: spreadsheet_id: The ID of the spreadsheet title: The title for the new sheet

Returns: Information about the newly created sheet

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>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes
`title`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations include destructiveHint: true, indicating mutation, which the description aligns with by stating 'Create'. However, beyond annotations, the description adds little behavioral detail (e.g., it does not state that the spreadsheet must already exist, though 'existing' is mentioned).

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 very concise (three short lines), front-loading the purpose and including Args/Returns without unnecessary words. Every sentence serves a purpose.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (2 parameters, clear purpose, output schema present), the description is largely complete. It mentions 'existing spreadsheet' and the return value is covered by output schema. Minor gaps like error handling or uniqueness of title are not critical for this low-complexity tool.

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 provides minimal explanations for each parameter: 'The ID of the spreadsheet' and 'The title for the new sheet'. This adds some value beyond names but lacks format, constraints, or examples.

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 'Create' and the resource 'new sheet tab in an existing Google Spreadsheet', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_spreadsheet' that create entire spreadsheets.

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 'copy_sheet' or 'duplicate_sheet'. The description does not specify prerequisites or conditions for use.

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