Create a new document. Use this when asked to create, write, draft, or compose a document, doc, note, page, article, or word document. Content should be HTML (e.g. "Hello").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | Document title | |
| content | No | HTML content of the document | |
| server_id | No | Server ID to create in (omit for personal) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It adds the important requirement that 'Content should be HTML (e.g. "<p>Hello</p>")' and gives a simple example. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the document is created in a specific location, what happens on success, or any side effects beyond creation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every word earns its place. It efficiently packs the action, trigger phrases, and content format guidance without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple create operation with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: it states the action, when to use it, and the content format. It could be improved by briefly noting what a successful response looks like or mentioning the optional nature of server_id, but these are covered by the schema and the description is generally complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All three parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying the format for the 'content' parameter ('should be HTML' with an example), which the schema only describes as 'HTML content of the document.' This enhances parameter understanding.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Create a new document,' which is a specific verb+resource pair. It further clarifies scope with a list of user intents ('create, write, draft, or compose a document, doc, note, page, article, or word document') which clearly differentiates it from sibling tools for spreadsheets and slide decks.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this when asked to create, write, draft, or compose a document...' This gives clear context. However, it doesn't mention explicit exclusions like 'do not use for spreadsheets or slides,' so it misses full when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool maps to a distinct resource and action: documents, sheets, slides, and servers. Even similar operations like update_sheet and update_sheet_tab are clearly separated by scope (workbook vs tab).
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (create_document, delete_sheet_tab, list_slides), but there are minor deviations: 'append_to_document' vs 'append_rows'/'append_slides', and 'create_slide_presentation' vs 'list_slides' use inconsistent naming lengths and pluralization.
With 23 tools, the server is slightly above the ideal 3–15 range but reasonable for covering three full document-type lifecycles (documents, spreadsheets, presentations) plus server listing. No tool feels redundant.
The server provides create, read, update, delete, list, and append operations for documents, sheets, and presentations, including tab-level management for spreadsheets. Minor gaps exist like no individual slide update or search across all resource types, but the core workflows are well-covered.