gg-mcp

by tannht

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

update_spreadsheet

Update specific cells in a Google spreadsheet by providing a range and a JSON 2D array of values.

Instructions

Update cells in a spreadsheet. Values format: JSON 2D array, e.g. '[["A","B"],["1","2"]]'. Range: 'Sheet1!A1'.

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>",
      "range": "<range>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "update_spreadsheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes
`range`	Yes
`values`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.1.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states 'Update' (implying mutation) and gives value format, but omits behavioral traits like whether it overwrites existing values, permissions required, or effects on formulas.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. Purpose and key format details are front-loaded. Every sentence adds 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 update tool with no output schema and 0% schema coverage, the description explains parameter formats but lacks details on behavior (e.g., partial updates, return value) and does not discuss spreadsheet_id. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning for `values` (JSON 2D array example) and `range` (example 'Sheet1!A1'). This compensates for empty schema descriptions. However, `spreadsheet_id` is not elaborated beyond its name.

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 'Update cells in a spreadsheet' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like read_spreadsheet, clear_spreadsheet_range, batch_update_spreadsheet, which have different scopes.

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 vs alternatives such as batch_update_spreadsheet or append_to_spreadsheet. No exclusions or contextual recommendations provided.

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