Creates a named range in Google Sheets to make cell references easier in formulas. Specify the spreadsheet ID, name, and A1 notation range.
Creates a named range in a spreadsheet
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | The name for the named range | |
| range | Yes | The A1 notation range (e.g. Sheet1!A1:C10) | |
| spreadsheet_id | Yes | The ID of the spreadsheet |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose that the tool is not read-only, not open-world, idempotent, and not destructive. The description adds little beyond restating the action, but it does confirm the mutation scope. With annotations covering the safety profile, the bar is lower, so a 4 is fair for a concise confirmation that doesn't contradict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It conveys the essential action without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits key behavioral details such as whether the range must be unique, what happens on name collision, or whether the range is scoped to the spreadsheet. These gaps reduce completeness despite the annotations handling safety.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters in detail. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable when schema does the heavy lifting. Baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a clear verb+resource: 'Creates a named range in a spreadsheet.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_list_named_ranges (read vs. create). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from other create tools (e.g., sheets_create_sheet), but the resource is specific enough to be unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., spreadsheet must exist), and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer usage from the tool name and siblings alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.