Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MCP Google Sheets

MCP Google Sheets

by toantran201
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Rename Sheet

rename_sheet

Renames a sheet tab in a Google Spreadsheet. Identify the target by sheet ID or current title.

Instructions

Renames a sheet tab. Identify the sheet by sheet_id or old_title.

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": "<spreadsheet>",
      "new_title": "<new_title>"
    },
    "name": "rename_sheet"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sheet_idNoNumeric sheet ID
new_titleYesNew name for the sheet tab
old_titleNoCurrent sheet title (used if sheet_id is not provided)
spreadsheetYesTarget spreadsheet: a full Google Sheets URL (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/<ID>/edit...) or a bare spreadsheet ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 for behavioral disclosure. It only states the rename action without mentioning permissions, side effects, or limitations. Minimal transparency.

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 extremely concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. No extraneous words.

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?

Given the tool has 4 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description covers identification but lacks details on error handling, what happens if both identifiers are provided, or any constraints beyond the schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds value by indicating that sheet_id or old_title can be used for identification, but does not explain interaction or precedence. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Renames') and resource ('sheet tab'), and clearly states the identification method (by sheet_id or old_title). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_sheet or add_columns.

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?

The description implies usage by explaining how to identify the sheet, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools