mcp-google-sheets

find_in_spreadsheet

Read-only

Search for a specific value in a Google Spreadsheet cells, returning their locations and values. Supports optional sheet filter, case sensitivity, and result limit.

Instructions

Find cells containing a specific value in a Google Spreadsheet.

Args: spreadsheet_id: The ID of the spreadsheet (found in the URL) query: The text to search for in cell values sheet: Optional sheet name to search in. If not provided, searches all sheets. case_sensitive: Whether the search should be case-sensitive (default False) max_results: Maximum number of results to return (default 50)

Returns: List of found cells with their location (sheet, cell in A1 notation) and value

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>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "find_in_spreadsheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes
`query`	Yes
`sheet`	No
`case_sensitive`	No
`max_results`	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?

The description confirms the read-only nature (matching the annotation 'readOnlyHint: true') and adds detail about the return value (list of found cells with location and value). It does not mention potential performance impacts or edge cases, but overall provides good transparency beyond 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 well-structured with an 'Args' list and 'Returns' statement. It is reasonably concise, though the 'Args:' prefix could be streamlined. Every sentence adds value, and the format aids readability.

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 tool has 5 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, the description covers all parameters and the return format. It does not explicitly address edge cases like empty results but is complete enough for standard use.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% coverage. It explains each parameter clearly, including how to obtain 'spreadsheet_id' (from URL), the role of 'query', and defaults for 'case_sensitive' (False) and 'max_results' (50). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool finds cells containing a specific value in a Google Spreadsheet, using a specific verb ('Find') and resource ('cells'). It is distinct from sibling tools like 'search_spreadsheets' (which searches across spreadsheets) and 'get_sheet_data' (which retrieves all data).

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention when not to use it. The usage context is implied by the tool's function, but no exclusions or comparisons are given.

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