Google Workspace MCP

sheets_read

Read-only

Read a Google Sheets cell range by providing a spreadsheet ID and range, and get rows as arrays for further processing.

Instructions

Read a cell range, e.g. 'Sheet1!A1:D50'. Returns rows as arrays.

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>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the non-mutating nature is covered. The description adds the return format ('rows as arrays') and a range example, which is useful but does not disclose other behaviors like formatting or formula handling. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the action and provides a concrete example. Every word contributes value, with no redundant or filler content.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema and no schema descriptions, the missing 'spreadsheetId' semantics is a significant gap. The range example is helpful, but the description is not self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 clarifies the 'range' parameter with an example, but 'spreadsheetId' remains completely unexplained, leaving half of the required parameters undocumented.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('cell range') with an example format, making the core operation clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling tool 'sheets_get', so it misses full differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sheets_get' or 'sheets_write'. The agent must rely on the tool name and sibling context, with no explicit conditions or exclusions.

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