mcp-google-sheets

delete_rows_columns

Destructive

Delete a range of rows or columns from a Google Sheets spreadsheet by specifying start and end indices.

Instructions

Delete rows or columns from a sheet.

Args: spreadsheet_id: The ID of the spreadsheet sheet: Sheet/tab name dimension: 'ROWS' or 'COLUMNS' start_index: 0-based start index (inclusive) end_index: 0-based end index (exclusive)

Returns: Result of the delete 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>",
      "dimension": "<dimension>",
      "start_index": "<start_index>",
      "end_index": "<end_index>"
    },
    "name": "delete_rows_columns"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes
`sheet`	Yes
`dimension`	Yes
`start_index`	Yes
`end_index`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already mark destructiveHint=true. The description aligns with this but adds no extra context about irreversibility, data shifting, or other effects. It meets expectations but does not exceed them given the annotation coverage.

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 extremely concise with a clear two-sentence intro followed by a bulleted argument list. Every word serves a purpose, and the structure is easy to parse.

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 presence of an output schema and the destructive annotation, the description covers the core functionality. However, it could add context about the permanence of deletion and that rows/columns shift, which would make it more complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden. It explains each parameter meaningfully (e.g., '0-based start index (inclusive)'), adding significant value beyond the raw schema.

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 explicitly states 'Delete rows or columns from a sheet', using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings that add, format, or clear without deleting structure.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like clear_range or when not to use it. The description only lists parameters without contextual usage advice.

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