List spreadsheets accessible to the authenticated Google Drive user, with optional name filtering and result limits to find the right file quickly.
Lists spreadsheets accessible to the authenticated user via Google Drive
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search query to filter spreadsheets by name | |
| max_results | No | Maximum number of results to return (default 20, max 100) |
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 elsewhere. The description adds only the auth/Drive scoping context and says nothing about result ordering, pagination, or truncation behavior at the 100-item cap.
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 or redundancy. It is arguably too terse for the tool's role as the discovery entry point, but every word 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?
No output schema exists, and the description does not describe the return shape or whether the Drive 'max_results' cap causes silent truncation. For a low-complexity two-parameter read tool whose annotations cover safety, this is adequate but leaves the agent to infer how results are shaped and how to page through more than 100 items.
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% with only two simple parameters, so the schema already documents 'query' and 'max_results' including the default and max. The description adds no syntax detail for the query (e.g. whether it is a name substring or a Drive query string), so it neither compensates nor misleads.
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 and resource ('Lists spreadsheets') plus scope ('accessible to the authenticated user via Google Drive'), so the agent knows this is a top-level discovery tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the many per-spreadsheet siblings (sheets_get_sheet_metadata, sheets_list_named_ranges, etc.), leaving that distinction implicit.
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 offers no when-to-use guidance, no statement that this is the entry point for obtaining spreadsheet IDs that the other siblings require, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The 'accessible to the authenticated user' clause hints at scope but is not actionable guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.