Google Sheets Advanced MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sheets_read_multiple_ranges

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read cell values from multiple ranges in one batch request, cutting API calls and simplifying data retrieval across a Google Sheet.

Instructions

Reads cell values from multiple ranges in a single batch request

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>",
      "ranges": "<ranges>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_read_multiple_ranges"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ranges`	Yes	Array of A1 notation ranges to read
`value_render`	No	How values should be rendered: formatted (default), unformatted (raw numbers), or formula
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes	The ID of the spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the batch behavior, which is contextually useful, but no return format, range-mismatch behavior, or limits are disclosed given no output schema.

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, front-loaded sentence that states the operation and its distinguishing batch trait with zero waste.

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?

Adequate minimum for a simple batch read whose annotations cover safety, but with no output schema the description should say more about the return shape (e.g., how results map to the input ranges) or any per-range error behavior. It leaves the batch-result contract undefined.

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 the schema already documents all three parameters including the A1 notation format and value_render enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 (Reads) and resource (cell values) with the batch scope clarified as 'multiple ranges in a single batch request'. Distinguishes somewhat from the sibling sheets_read_range, though it doesn't name that sibling explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The 'multiple ranges in a single batch request' phrasing implies when this is preferable to a single-range read, but there's no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is only implied.

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