Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Sheets MCP Server

Google Sheets MCP Server

by we2go
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

sheets_append_row

Appends a row of data to a Google Sheet, using column headers from the first row to automatically align values.

Instructions

Append a row to a sheet. The row is a JSON object with column names as keys. The tool automatically reads the header row to align columns. Example: {"name": "Anton", "email": "anton@example.com"}

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": {
      "sheet": "<sheet>",
      "row": "<row>"
    },
    "name": "sheets_append_row"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowYesRow data as JSON object. Keys = column headers, values = cell values.
sheetYesSheet name (tab name).
spreadsheetNoOptional spreadsheet ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait: automatic header row reading and column alignment. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or error scenarios, which would make it a 5.

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?

Two sentences plus an example. Every word adds value. Front-loaded with the core action. No redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity and absence of output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the core functionality and parameter semantics. It lacks potential error handling info but is sufficient for typical use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing an example and explaining the row parameter mapping (keys as column headers). It also clarifies the sheet parameter as 'tab name'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Append' and the resource 'a row to a sheet'. It explains the alignment via header row, which distinguishes it from siblings like write_range. The example further clarifies the purpose.

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 description implies use when adding a new row but lacks explicit when-not or comparison to alternatives like sheets_write_range. No direct guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools