Google Sheets Advanced MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sheets_write_multiple_ranges

Idempotent

Write values to multiple Google Sheets ranges in a single batch request. Use to update several A1 ranges at once and reduce repetitive API calls.

Instructions

Writes values to multiple ranges in a single batch operation

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>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_write_multiple_ranges"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Array of range-value pairs to write
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes	The ID of the spreadsheet

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already disclose that this is a write operation, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds only that it operates as a single batch, without clarifying overwrite semantics, atomicity, or auth requirements. No contradiction with annotations.

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 with no filler. It states the operation and batching behavior efficiently.

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 given full schema coverage and rich annotations, but the description omits return behavior (and there is no output schema) and does not explain whether existing values are overwritten or how errors are handled. Thin but minimally sufficient for invocation.

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%, and the schema fully documents spreadsheet_id, data, range, and values. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the notion of multiple ranges, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (writes), resource (values), and scope (multiple ranges in a single batch operation). This distinguishes it from the single-range sibling sheets_write_range, though it does not 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 Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The phrase 'multiple ranges in a single batch operation' implies the use case but does not tell an agent when to choose this over sheets_write_range or sheets_append_rows.

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