mcp-google-sheets

get_sheet_formulas

Read-only

Retrieve formulas from a Google Sheets spreadsheet. Optionally specify a cell range to get formulas from only that area.

Instructions

Get formulas from a specific sheet in a Google Spreadsheet.

Args: spreadsheet_id: The ID of the spreadsheet (found in the URL) sheet: The name of the sheet range: Optional cell range in A1 notation (e.g., 'A1:C10'). If not provided, gets all formulas from the sheet.

Returns: A 2D array of the sheet formulas.

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": "get_sheet_formulas"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat that. It adds that the tool returns a 2D array of formulas, providing useful output context 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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is slightly structured but not overly verbose. Could be slightly trimmed without loss.

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 simple read-only tool, the description covers the main functionality and output format. However, it doesn't mention edge cases (e.g., empty sheet, invalid range) or error behavior, which would enhance completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description fully explains each parameter: spreadsheet_id location, sheet naming, and range format with default behavior. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema titles.

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 retrieves formulas from a specific sheet in a Google Spreadsheet, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_sheet_data which returns values, though not explicitly.

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 get_sheet_data for values or find_in_spreadsheet. Missing context on prerequisites (e.g., sheet must exist, permissions).

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