mcp-google-sheets

update_cells

Destructive

Update cells in a Google Spreadsheet by specifying the sheet, range in A1 notation, and a 2D array of values. Returns the result of the update operation.

Instructions

Update cells in a Google Spreadsheet.

Args: spreadsheet_id: The ID of the spreadsheet (found in the URL) sheet: The name of the sheet range: Cell range in A1 notation (e.g., 'A1:C10') data: 2D array of values to update

Returns: Result of the update 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>",
      "sheet": "<sheet>",
      "range": "<range>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "update_cells"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes
`sheet`	Yes
`range`	Yes
`data`	Yes

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 mark destructiveHint=true, confirming mutation. Description adds no extra behavioral context (e.g., overwrite behavior, response format). Neutral alignment.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences plus a structured args list. Every element is necessary with no redundancy.

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?

Output description is vague ('Result of the update operation') and does not specify return structure. Given 4 required params and output schema existence, more detail on return values and behavior would improve completeness.

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?

Description adds meaning for each parameter beyond the schema: spreadsheet_id location, sheet name, range in A1 notation, data as 2D array. Schema coverage is 0%, so description compensates well, though data format specifics are lacking.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description states verb 'Update' and resource 'cells in a Google Spreadsheet', making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'batch_update_cells', which has similar purpose.

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 batch_update_cells, append_rows, or format_cells. Lacks context for appropriate usage scenarios.

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