Skip to main content
Glama

Update Doc

update_document
Destructive

Update an existing Google Doc. Supports replacing all content or appending to it. The result reports the mode that was actually applied and how many characters were written, so you can confirm a replace was a replace.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNoWrite mode: 'replace' clears and replaces all content, 'append' adds to the end. Defaults to 'replace' when omitted. Matched case-insensitively; any other value is rejected. The result reports the mode actually applied — check it.
contentYesText content to write
document_idYesThe document ID to update

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
urlYesLink that opens the document in Google Docs — give this to the user
modeYesThe write mode actually applied: 'replace' or 'append'. Compare this against what you asked for.
statusYesAlways 'ok' — a failure arrives as an error, not as a status
document_idYesThe document that was written
chars_writtenYesNumber of characters written, counted in runes rather than bytes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, and the description adds crucial nuance: 'replace' clears all content, 'append' does not, and the result reports the mode actually applied plus character count. This lets an agent verify that a destructive replace happened as intended, which is valuable context beyond the structured 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?

Three sentences, no filler, with the core action first and the operational modes second. Every sentence contributes either a concrete capability or a safety-related confirmation behavior.

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 fully documented input schema, the output schema, and annotations covering destructive behavior, the description covers everything essential for correct invocation. It even adds the verification detail about reported mode and character count, which reduces ambiguity without needing to restate return schemas.

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 schema already documents document_id, content, and mode thoroughly, including default and validation behavior. The tool description mostly paraphrases the mode semantics and adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond emphasizing that the result reports the applied mode.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Update an existing Google Doc,' and immediately distinguishes the two supported operations (replace all content or append). The mention of 'existing' differentiates it from create_document, and the resource type differentiates it from update_spreadsheet and update_presentation.

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?

The description clearly indicates this tool is for updating a Google Doc and explains the two modes, including the default behavior. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or state when-not-to-use, but the resource-specific language provides enough context for an agent to select it appropriately.

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

Try in Browser

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