Google Workspace MCP

sheets_append

Appends rows to the end of a Google Sheet, preserving existing data. Use this tool to add new records instead of overwriting the sheet.

Instructions

Add rows to the end of a sheet without touching what is there. Prefer this over sheets_write when adding data.

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": {
      "spreadsheetId": "<spreadsheetId>",
      "range": "<range>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_append"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The phrase 'without touching what is there' adds useful behavioral nuance: the operation appends rather than overwrites, which complements the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). It provides context beyond the annotations, though it does not describe return values or error behavior.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no filler. The usage preference is stated in a second sentence without repetition.

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 3-param append tool with annotations present, the purpose and usage are clear. However, the lack of parameter-level guidance and no output schema mean the description is not fully sufficient for correct invocation, especially around range and values formatting.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies values are rows and appending happens at the end, but it does not explain spreadsheetId, the A1 range format, or the nested-array structure of values. An agent would need to infer important invocation details from parameter names alone.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: 'Add rows to the end of a sheet.' It also distinguishes itself from sheets_write by explicitly positioning sheets_append as the preferred tool for adding data, so an agent can tell them apart.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Prefer this over sheets_write when adding data' is explicit routing guidance: it names the alternative tool and the condition that selects sheets_append. This gives the agent a clear when-to-use rule without extra inference.

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