ShareWatch

Add Sheet Tab

add_sheet_tab

Destructive

Add a new tab to an existing Google Sheet. Use this when you need an additional sheet after creation. Returns the new tab's sheetId.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sheet_name`	Yes	Name for the new tab
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes	The spreadsheet ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`sheet_id`	Yes	Google's numeric ID for the new tab — required by the Sheets API for any later operation targeting it, and not derivable from the name
`sheet_name`	Yes
`spreadsheet_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal mutation and non-idempotency via readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context: the target must be an existing Google Sheet, and the new tab's sheetId is returned, which goes beyond the 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?

Two clean sentences: the action is front-loaded, the usage condition is explicit, and the return value is stated. There is no filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

This is a low-complexity tool with only two required parameters, no nested objects, and an output schema present. The description covers the action, the prerequisite of an existing sheet, and the returned ID, making it complete for an agent.

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 both parameters are already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add additional semantic detail about spreadsheet_id or sheet_name, which is acceptable given the baseline.

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 opens with 'Add a new tab to an existing Google Sheet,' using a specific verb, resource, and scope. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling creation tools like create_spreadsheet by noting this is for adding to an already-created sheet.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It provides explicit usage context: 'Use this when you need an additional sheet after creation.' However, it does not name alternatives or give explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so some routing is left to inference.

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

All ShareWatch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the detailed descriptions separate similar-sounding ones. A few pairs could still be confused: access_file_by_url vs request_file_access, and create_document vs format_document, but their trigger conditions are described clearly enough to avoid frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set mostly follows a verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case, e.g. create_document, update_spreadsheet, delete_file. Minor deviations like build_presentation instead of create_presentation, and format_document alongside create_document, break the pattern slightly but remain readable and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the heavy end of the scale, though the domain spans Drive, Docs, Sheets, and Slides, which justifies a large surface. Some consolidation is possible — access_file_by_url and request_file_access overlap, as do create_document and format_document — so the count feels slightly bloated rather than tightly scoped.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core file lifecycle well: create, read, update, delete, move, list, search, upload, and access control across all major Google Workspace document types. Minor gaps exist, such as no rename, copy, export, or direct sharing tool, but agents can work around these without major failures.

Resources

Need Help?