mcp-google-sheets

upload_excel

Destructive

Upload an Excel or CSV file and convert it into a new Google Spreadsheet. Optionally set a title and specify a Google Drive folder.

Instructions

Upload an Excel (.xlsx/.xls) or CSV file and convert it to a Google Spreadsheet.

Args: file_path: Local file path to the Excel or CSV file title: Optional title for the new spreadsheet (defaults to the filename) folder_id: Optional Google Drive folder ID to place the file in

Returns: The created spreadsheet's ID, title, and URL

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": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "upload_excel"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_path`	Yes
`title`	No
`folder_id`	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

Behavior3/5

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

Description mentions the file conversion and return values, but lacks details on file size limits, error handling, or behavior if file already exists. Annotations provide destructiveHint which is consistent.

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?

Very concise: one-line summary followed by clear parameter descriptions. No redundant 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?

Covers main purpose, parameters, and return values. Missing details on file size limits or error scenarios, but adequate for a straightforward upload tool.

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?

Each parameter is described with its purpose beyond the schema: file_path as local path, title as optional name, folder_id as optional Drive folder. Schema coverage is 0%, so description adds significant value.

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?

Clearly states the tool uploads an Excel/CSV file and converts it to a Google Spreadsheet. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_spreadsheet (creates empty spreadsheet) and other spreadsheet manipulation tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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 like create_spreadsheet. Usage is implied but not clarified.

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