mcp-google-sheets

rename_sheet

Destructive

Renames a sheet in a Google Spreadsheet. Provide the spreadsheet ID, current sheet name, and new name to update the sheet's title.

Instructions

Rename a sheet in a Google Spreadsheet.

Args: spreadsheet: Spreadsheet ID sheet: Current sheet name new_name: New sheet name

Returns: Result of the 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": "<spreadsheet>",
      "sheet": "<sheet>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spreadsheet`	Yes
`sheet`	Yes
`new_name`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations set destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows the tool is destructive. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., effects on formulas, permissions, rollback). It merely restates the operation.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loaded with the main sentence. However, the 'Args' and 'Returns' lines are redundant given the schema and output schema, adding unnecessary verbosity without value.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with three required parameters and a clear operation, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks guidance on when to use it and does not explain the return value format, which is partially addressed by the output schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists parameter names in 'Args' but adds no additional meaning (e.g., format of spreadsheet ID, uniqueness constraints for sheet names). The information is identical to 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's purpose: 'Rename a sheet in a Google Spreadsheet.' It uses a specific verb ('rename') and resource ('sheet'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'move_sheet' or 'copy_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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like 'duplicate_sheet' or 'move_sheet' are listed, but the description does not help the agent differentiate based on operation intent.

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