Google Sheets Advanced MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sheets_append_rows

Idempotent

Append rows of data after the last row with content in a specified range, enabling AI assistants to add new entries to Google Sheets.

Instructions

Appends rows of data after the last row with content in a range

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_id": "<spreadsheet_id>",
      "range": "<range>",
      "values": "<values>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_append_rows"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`range`	Yes	The A1 notation range to search for a table to append to (e.g. Sheet1!A:E)
`values`	Yes	2D array of row values to append
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes	The ID of the spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful behavioral detail that placement is determined by searching for the last row with content, but says nothing about permission needs, failure modes, or what the response returns.

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?

A single sentence with zero padding, and the key scoping fact about where rows land is front-loaded.

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?

A simple three-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and annotations, so the description needn't explain returns. However, for a write tool the caller would benefit from knowing what is returned for use in follow-up edits, and no such detail is given.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description's 'after the last row with content in a range' adds a little meaning to how 'range' is interpreted, but no format details or constraints beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Appends') and resource ('rows of data') plus the placement semantics ('after the last row with content'). This clearly differentiates it from sheets_write_range, though it never names that sibling explicitly, which keeps it just short of a 5.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus sheets_write_range, which also writes to cells. The description implies a preference for appending when the table position is unknown, but that condition is never stated.

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