mcp-google-sheets

list_sheets

Read-only

Retrieve the names of all sheets in a Google Spreadsheet by providing the spreadsheet ID.

Instructions

List all sheets in a Google Spreadsheet.

Args: spreadsheet_id: The ID of the spreadsheet (found in the URL)

Returns: List of sheet names

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_sheets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spreadsheet_id`	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 declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond returning a list of sheet names. No mention of limits, pagination, or error scenarios.

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, well-structured with Args/Returns sections, and contains no unnecessary words while conveying essential information.

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 simple read-only nature and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the basics adequately. It lacks details on error handling or non-existent spreadsheets, but is complete enough for a straightforward list operation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description explains the spreadsheet_id parameter's meaning and where to find it, adding significant value beyond the bare 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 the action ('List all sheets'), the resource ('sheets in a Google Spreadsheet'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like create_sheet or rename_sheet.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_spreadsheets or get_multiple_sheet_data. It does not mention prerequisites beyond the spreadsheet ID 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.