mcp-google-sheets

resolve_comment

Destructive

Resolve a comment in a Google Sheet by marking it as resolved, optionally adding a reply before closing.

Instructions

Resolve a comment, optionally adding a reply before resolving.

Args: spreadsheet_id: The ID of the spreadsheet comment_id: The comment ID (from get_comments) reply_content: Optional reply to add before resolving

Returns: Result of the resolve 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_id": "<spreadsheet_id>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes
`comment_id`	Yes
`reply_content`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.2Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint: true, so description need not repeat. It adds optional reply detail but lacks other behavioral context (e.g., irreversibility, state changes).

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?

Exceptionally concise: 3 lines for purpose, args, returns. No extraneous text. Information is well-structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given a simple tool with output schema, description covers essential but misses edge cases (e.g., re-resolving) and vague return ('Result of the resolve operation'). Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

0% schema coverage means description must compensate. Args are listed with minimal phrases like 'The ID of the spreadsheet', which adds little beyond parameter names. No guidance on format or origin of IDs.

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?

Description clearly states 'Resolve a comment' with a specific action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like add_comment and get_comments.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No mention of prerequisites or alternatives despite existence of add_comment and get_comments as siblings.

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