Skip to main content
Glama

Google_docs

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Docs Insert Text

docs_insert_text
Idempotent

Insert text at a specific position in a Google Doc (e.g., position 0 for start, position 50 for middle).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesText to insert
indexNoCharacter index to insert at (1 = start of body)
document_idYesDocument ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoError code if connection failed
messageNoError message if connection failed
repliesNoResults of batch update requests
documentIdNoDocument ID

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "description": "Response from inserting text at specified index",
+  "properties": {
+    "documentId": {
+      "description": "Document ID",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error code if connection failed",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Error message if connection failed",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "replies": {
+      "description": "Results of batch update requests",
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "document_id": "1BxiMVs0XRA5nFMKUVfGo6Q6XcYBCy_N1LCcFrZkZecc",
+    "index": 1,
+    "text": "Executive Summary"
+  },
+  {
+    "document_id": "1BxiMVs0XRA5nFMKUVfGo6Q6XcYBCy_N1LCcFrZkZecc",
+    "index": 150,
+    "text": "Updated deadline: March 15"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the description adds minimal behavioral context beyond specifying the insertion position. It does not discuss side effects like shifting existing text or handling out-of-range indices. No contradiction with 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?

The description is a single sentence with an example in parentheses, extremely concise with no unnecessary words. Every part earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has an output schema and the annotations cover safety aspects, the description is minimally complete for a simple insertion. However, it lacks details on edge cases (e.g., index out of bounds) and does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools, which would enhance completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description's example suggests index 0 for start while the schema states 1 = start, which is misleading. This reduces the value added beyond the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the tool inserts text at a specific position in a Google Doc, with examples indicating start and middle. However, there is an inconsistency between the description (position 0 for start) and the input schema (index 1 = start of body), which could cause confusion.

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 provides examples of when to use (insert at start or middle), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like docs_append_text or docs_replace_text. Guidance is implied but not explicit, leaving the agent to infer alternatives.

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

All Google_docs toolsInspect
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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are nearly indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, while ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research heavily overlap with the same router. The dense Polymarket tool cluster and discovery tools (discover_tools vs suggest_questions) further blur boundaries, though many individual tools do have distinct niches.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case, which helps, but the convention is mixed: some are verb_noun (docs_create, list_subscriptions), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research), and one uses a suffix (ask_pipeworx_beta). It is readable but not a predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is already above the 25+ threshold, but the bigger problem is that the server is named Google_docs and only 6 of the 37 tools relate to Google Docs. The remaining 31 tools form a broad data-research and prediction-market platform, making the set feel bloated and mislabeled for its apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a Google Docs server, the surface is incomplete: you can create, read, insert, replace, and append text, but there is no delete, no list/search, no formatting control, and no permission handling. The extensive Pipeworx and Polymarket tools cover a different domain entirely, so they do not fill the gaps in the docs workflow.

Resources