mcp-google-sheets

duplicate_sheet

Destructive

Creates a copy of a specified sheet within the same Google spreadsheet, optionally assigning a new name.

Instructions

Duplicate a sheet/tab within the same spreadsheet.

Args: spreadsheet_id: The ID of the spreadsheet sheet: Name of the sheet to duplicate new_name: Name for the duplicated sheet (defaults to 'Copy of ')

Returns: The new sheet's properties

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>"
    },
    "name": "duplicate_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes
`sheet`	Yes
`new_name`	No

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?

The annotations include destructiveHint: true, indicating the tool modifies state. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the parameters and default behavior for new_name. It does not elaborate on destructive aspects or side effects.

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 concise: a single sentence for purpose, followed by a structured Args list and Returns note. Every sentence is informative and earns its place.

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?

For a tool with 3 parameters and an output schema, the description covers purpose, all parameters, and return value. It lacks explicit context about when to use vs. siblings, but otherwise meets completeness needs.

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 includes an Args section that explains each parameter (spreadsheet_id, sheet, new_name) and its purpose, including the default for new_name. This adds significant meaning 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 clearly states 'Duplicate a sheet/tab within the same spreadsheet.' This specifies the verb (duplicate) and resource (sheet/tab) and differentiates from the sibling 'copy_sheet' by limiting scope to the same spreadsheet.

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?

The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., copy_sheet, create_sheet). It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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