Retrieve all named ranges in a spreadsheet along with their A1 notation references, so you can map labels to exact cell ranges for use in formulas and scripts.
Lists all named ranges in a spreadsheet with their A1 notation references
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds that results include A1 notation references, which is useful framing, but no auth, pagination, or edge-case behavior is disclosed.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every clause earns its place.
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 closed-world read tool with fully documented single parameter and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient, especially since it hints at the return content (A1 notation). Slightly more on output shape would make it complete, but no output schema exists to lean on.
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?
Only one parameter, spreadsheet_id, and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter format, which is acceptable at this coverage level.
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) and resource (named ranges in a spreadsheet) and adds scope detail ('with their A1 notation references'). An agent can distinguish this from write-side siblings like sheets_create_named_range without opening a schema.
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 purpose implies usage (retrieve named ranges for a spreadsheet), but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no alternatives are named despite several nearby siblings such as sheets_get_spreadsheet_info and sheets_create_named_range.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.