Google Sheets Advanced MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sheets_sort_range

Idempotent

Sorts a specified Google Sheets range by one or more columns in ascending or descending order, organizing rows by selected column indices.

Instructions

Sorts a range of data by one or more columns

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>",
      "range": "<range>",
      "sort_specs": "<sort_specs>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_sort_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`range`	Yes	The A1 notation range to sort
`sort_specs`	Yes	Array of sort specifications applied in order
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes	The ID of the spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive mutation, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond the name about whether the sort mutates the sheet in place, what happens to surrounding data, or result format.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One efficient, front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is a bit under-specified rather than over-long, but structurally sound.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter mutation with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It could note in-place mutation behavior, but nothing essential for calling the tool is missing.

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 all three parameters (spreadsheet_id, range, sort_specs) are fully documented in the schema, including the 0-based column index and ascending/descending order. Description adds no parameter meaning 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 (sorts), resource (a range of data), and mechanism (by one or more columns). It is clear what the tool does, though it offers no differentiation from siblings like write_range or format_cells.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this over alternatives such as format_cells or writing a reordered range, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage purely from the purpose.

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