List all charts in a spreadsheet, optionally filtered by sheet name, to inspect or manage existing visualizations.
Lists all charts in a spreadsheet, optionally filtered by sheet name
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sheet_name | No | Filter charts to a specific sheet | |
| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond the scoping detail—no mention of output shape, pagination, or what happens if the spreadsheet has no charts.
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?
A single well-formed sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with the optional filter coming last. No redundant or filler content.
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 simple read-only list tool with rich annotations and only two fully documented parameters, the description is nearly sufficient. The only minor gap is that the return shape is not described, which is acceptable since no output schema exists but the operation is straightforward.
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 coverage is 100%, with both spreadsheet_id and sheet_name already documented in the schema. The description's 'optionally filtered by sheet name' merely restates the schema, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb (Lists), resource (charts), and container (spreadsheet), with an explicit optional filter. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling mutation tools (create_chart, update_chart, delete_chart), though it does not name any sibling explicitly.
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?
Usage is implied (read-only enumeration of charts with an optional sheet scope), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over siblings like sheets_get_sheet_metadata or sheets_get_spreadsheet_info, and no conditions or exclusions given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.