list_spreadsheet_commentsRetrieve all comments from a Google Spreadsheet, with an optional limit on the number returned.
List all comments from a Google Spreadsheet (optional max_comments to limit results).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_comments | No | ||
| spreadsheet_id | Yes | ||
| user_google_email | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Input schema / properties / max_comments / anyOfRemoved value: -[
- {
- "type": "integer"
- },
- {
- "type": "null"
- }
-]Input schema / properties / max_comments / typeAdded value: +"integer"v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the optional max_comments limit, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or default behavior when the parameter is omitted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and then states the optional parameter. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema and strong annotations, the description covers the essential listing behavior, but it is incomplete for confident invocation because required parameter semantics are not explained and no usage guidance or edge-case behavior is provided.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, and the description only clarifies max_comments. It does not explain the meaning or format of user_google_email or spreadsheet_id, leaving two required parameters to be inferred from their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific action ('List all comments') and resource ('from a Google Spreadsheet'), plus an optional limiting parameter. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_document_comments and manage_spreadsheet_comment.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The resource mention implies this tool is for spreadsheet comments, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose it over alternatives such as list_document_comments or manage_spreadsheet_comment. Usage is inferred from the resource type rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.