Google Workspace MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

format_sheet_range

Format a Google Sheets range by applying colors, number formats, text wrapping, alignment, and font styles for clear, consistent data presentation.

Instructions

Applies formatting to a range: colors, number formats, text wrapping, alignment, and text styling.

Colors accept hex strings (#RRGGBB). Number formats follow Sheets types (e.g., NUMBER, CURRENCY, DATE, PERCENT). If no sheet name is provided, the first sheet is used.

Args: user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required. spreadsheet_id (str): The ID of the spreadsheet. Required. range_name (str): A1-style range (optionally with sheet name). Required. background_color (Optional[str]): Hex background color (e.g., "#FFEECC"). text_color (Optional[str]): Hex text color (e.g., "#000000"). number_format_type (Optional[str]): Sheets number format type (e.g., "DATE"). number_format_pattern (Optional[str]): Custom pattern for the number format. wrap_strategy (Optional[str]): Text wrap strategy - WRAP (wrap text within cell), CLIP (clip text at cell boundary), or OVERFLOW_CELL (allow text to overflow into adjacent empty cells). horizontal_alignment (Optional[str]): Horizontal text alignment - LEFT, CENTER, or RIGHT. vertical_alignment (Optional[str]): Vertical text alignment - TOP, MIDDLE, or BOTTOM. bold (Optional[bool]): Whether to apply bold formatting. italic (Optional[bool]): Whether to apply italic formatting. font_size (Optional[int]): Font size in points.

Returns: str: Confirmation of the applied formatting.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`bold`	No
`italic`	No
`font_size`	No
`range_name`	Yes
`text_color`	No
`wrap_strategy`	No
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes
`background_color`	No
`user_google_email`	Yes
`number_format_type`	No
`vertical_alignment`	No
`horizontal_alignment`	No
`number_format_pattern`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.14.3Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does state the action and return value. However, it does not disclose whether absent optional fields preserve existing formatting or reset it, nor does it mention permission requirements or error behavior. The default-sheet behavior and accepted hex/format types are useful additions, but side-effect semantics are missing.

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 organized with an overview, format-specific notes, a complete Args list, and a Returns line. It is long because there are 13 undocumented parameters, but every sentence provides necessary semantics rather than repeating schema names.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given 13 parameters, no schema descriptions, and no annotations, the description covers all required invocation details, defaults, accepted values, and the return type. It is only slightly incomplete because it does not spell out the effect on unspecified formatting fields or failure conditions.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates with a detailed Args section documenting all 13 parameters. It gives concrete formats (hex strings), enumeration values (WRAP/CLIP/OVERFLOW_CELL, LEFT/CENTER/RIGHT), and examples for number formats.

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 opens with a concrete action and target: 'Applies formatting to a range' followed by the formatting categories (colors, number formats, wrapping, alignment, styling). This clearly differentiates it from nearby value-mutation and conditional-formatting siblings.

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 gives clear context that this tool is for direct range formatting and notes defaults like the first sheet being used, but it never explicitly says when to choose this over alternatives such as manage_conditional_formatting or modify_sheet_values. Usage is implied rather than stated with exclusions.

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

Deploy Server