ShareWatch

Format Doc from Markdown

format_document

Destructive

Write markdown content into a Google Doc with full formatting — headings, bold, italic, bullets, numbered lists, links, and horizontal rules. Use this instead of create_document or update_document when the content has structure that should be visually formatted. Pass file_id to replace an existing doc's content, or omit to create a new doc.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No	Document title (required when creating a new doc)
`file_id`	No	Existing Google Doc file ID to replace content in. Omit to create a new doc.
`markdown`	Yes	Markdown content to render as a formatted Google Doc. Supports headings (# ## ###), bold, italic, - bullet lists, 1. numbered lists, [links](url), and horizontal rules (---).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	Link that opens the document in Google Docs — give this to the user
`mode`	Yes	The write mode actually applied: 'replace' or 'append'. Compare this against what you asked for.
`status`	Yes	Always 'ok' — a failure arrives as an error, not as a status
`document_id`	Yes	The document that was written
`chars_written`	Yes	Number of characters written, counted in runes rather than bytes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark destructiveHint=true, and the description adds the concrete destructive behavior: passing file_id replaces an existing doc's content. It also clarifies the non-destructive creation path when file_id is omitted and discloses supported formatting constructs, aligning with the non-read-only, non-idempotent annotation profile.

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 tight sentences carry the full message: what the tool does, which formatting features it supports, when to prefer it over siblings, and how to switch between creating and replacing. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the simple three-parameter schema, full schema coverage, existing annotations, and output schema, this description is complete. It gives the agent enough to select the tool, invoke it correctly in both modes, and understand the destructive consequence of providing file_id.

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 input schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description reinforces markdown syntax and the file_id create-vs-replace behavior, but it adds little semantic information beyond what the parameter descriptions already provide.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Write markdown content into a Google Doc with full formatting.' It lists the exact formatting features and explicitly distinguishes itself from create_document and update_document, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does and how it differs from its closest siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives an explicit selection rule: use this instead of create_document or update_document when content has structure that should be visually formatted. It also explains the two invocation modes — pass file_id to replace existing content, or omit it to create a new doc — covering the key routing decision.

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?