Skip to main content
Glama

Google_docs

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Docs Replace Text

docs_replace_text
Read-onlyIdempotent

Find and replace all occurrences of text in a Google Doc with new text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
findYesText to find
replaceYesReplacement text
match_caseNoCase-sensitive match (default: false)
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 finding and replacing text",
+  "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",
+    "find": "TODO",
+    "replace": "COMPLETED"
+  },
+  {
+    "document_id": "1BxiMVs0XRA5nFMKUVfGo6Q6XcYBCy_N1LCcFrZkZecc",
+    "find": "John",
+    "match_case": true,
+    "replace": "Jane"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description asserts a mutation operation ('Find and replace...'), but annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, which is a direct contradiction. The description does not reconcile this, leaving the agent with inconsistent signals about the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The single-sentence description is concise and front-loaded with the action. However, it lacks any structured breakdown or additional context that might help. It earns its place but could be more informative.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the tool's mutation nature and the contradiction with annotations, the description fails to provide complete context. It does not mention that all occurrences are replaced, nor does it address idempotency or start/end positions. The output schema exists but is not described, and the description does not compensate for the misleading annotations.

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 coverage is 100% (all 4 parameters described). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the function. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly specifies the action ('find and replace'), the resource ('text in a Google Doc'), and the scope ('all occurrences'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like docs_append_text or docs_insert_text.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it does not contrast with docs_insert_text or docs_append_text, nor does it mention prerequisites like document ownership.

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