mcp-google-sheets

create_spreadsheet

Destructive

Creates a new Google Spreadsheet with a specified title, optionally within a given Google Drive folder.

Instructions

Create a new Google Spreadsheet.

Args: title: The title of the new spreadsheet folder_id: Optional Google Drive folder ID where the spreadsheet should be created. If not provided, uses the configured default folder or creates in root.

Returns: Information about the newly created spreadsheet including its ID

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": {
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_spreadsheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	Yes
`folder_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and the description aligns by describing a creation operation. It adds value by explaining folder_id default behavior and return info, beyond the annotations.

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 with clear 'Args:' and 'Returns:' blocks, though the 'Args' section is slightly verbose for a single line.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and an output schema, the description provides sufficient context, including return value information.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to both parameters: title and folder_id, including default behavior for folder_id.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'Create a new Google Spreadsheet.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_spreadsheets or upload_excel.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description explains parameters and default behavior for folder_id, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_excel or when not to use it.

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