Server Details
Provides access to Google's public developer documentation.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.3/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: answer_query synthesizes answers from the corpus, search_documents finds relevant documents, and get_documents retrieves full document content. There is no overlap in functionality, and the descriptions explicitly explain how they work together in a pipeline (search → get → answer).
The tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (answer_query, get_documents, search_documents), which is clear and predictable. The only minor deviation is that 'answer_query' uses 'answer' instead of a more standard CRUD verb, but this is appropriate for its generative function and doesn't break consistency.
Three tools is well-scoped for this server's purpose of providing information about Google developer products. The tools cover the essential workflow: search for documents, retrieve full content, and get synthesized answers. Each tool earns its place without feeling thin or excessive.
The tool set provides complete coverage for the domain of querying Google developer documentation. It supports the full lifecycle: discovery (search_documents), retrieval (get_documents), and synthesis (answer_query). The descriptions explicitly guide agents on how to use them together, ensuring no dead ends.
Available Tools
3 toolsanswer_queryARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Use answer_query to get a grounded answer to a query about Google developer products. This tool has limited quota. This tool will synthesize information from the corpus to generate an answer to the query. answer_query grounds answers using the same corpus as search_documents. If you get a 429 out of quota error, use search_documents instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Required. The query to answer. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| answerText | No | The answer to the query. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive, idempotent operation with closed-world data. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: 'This tool has limited quota' and 'grounds answers using the same corpus as search_documents', which helps the agent understand rate limits and data sourcing. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 appropriately concise with three sentences that each serve distinct purposes: stating the tool's function, disclosing quota limitations, and providing usage alternatives. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates essential information.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (single parameter, with annotations and output schema available), the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, behavioral constraints (quota), data grounding, and clear sibling tool relationships, making it fully sufficient for agent decision-making.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting the single required 'query' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'get a grounded answer to a query about Google developer products' and 'synthesize information from the corpus to generate an answer'. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying it uses the same corpus as search_documents but provides answers rather than documents.
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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'If you get a 429 out of quota error, use search_documents instead.' This gives clear alternatives and conditions for when to use this tool versus its sibling, addressing quota limitations directly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
get_documentsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Use this tool to retrieve the full content of a single document or up to 20 documents in a single call. The document names should be obtained from the parent field of results from a call to the search_documents tool. Set the names parameter to a list of document names.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| names | Yes | Required. The names of the documents to retrieve, as returned by search_documents. A maximum of 20 documents can be retrieved in one call. The documents are returned in the same order as the `names` in the request. Format: `documents/{uri_without_scheme}` Example: `documents/docs.cloud.google.com/storage/docs/creating-buckets` |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| documents | No | Documents requested. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide read-only, non-destructive, idempotent, and closed-world hints. The description adds valuable context beyond this: the 20-document limit per call and that documents are returned in the same order as requested names. This enhances behavioral understanding without contradicting annotations.
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?
Two concise sentences that are front-loaded with key information (what it does and how to use it). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential usage instructions without redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity, rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description is complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral constraints, leaving return values to the output schema.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'names' parameter fully documented in the schema (including format, example, and max limit). The description mentions the 20-document limit and source of names, but adds minimal semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries most of the burden.
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 clearly states the verb ('retrieve the full content') and resource ('documents'), specifying it can handle single or multiple documents (up to 20). It distinguishes from sibling 'search_documents' by noting document names should come from that tool's results, making the purpose specific and differentiated.
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool: to retrieve full content after obtaining document names from 'search_documents'. It also specifies an alternative ('search_documents' for initial searching) and provides clear context on prerequisites (names from parent field of search results).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
search_documentsARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Use this tool to find documentation about Google developer products. The documents contain official APIs, code snippets, release notes, best practices, guides, debugging info, and more. It covers the following products and domains:
ADK: adk.dev
Android: developer.android.com
Apigee: docs.apigee.com
Chrome: developer.chrome.com
Firebase: firebase.google.com
Fuchsia: fuchsia.dev
Gemini CLI: geminicli.com
Go: go.dev
Google AI: ai.google.dev
Google Antigravity: antigravity.google
Google Cloud: docs.cloud.google.com
Google Developers, Ads, Search, Google Maps, Youtube: developers.google.com
Google Home: developers.home.google.com
TensorFlow: www.tensorflow.org
Web: web.dev
This tool returns chunks of text, names, and URLs for matching documents. If the returned chunks are not detailed enough to answer the user's question, use get_documents with the parent from this tool's output to retrieve the full document content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Required. The raw query string provided by the user, such as "How to create a Cloud Storage bucket?". |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | No | The search results for the given query. Each Document in this list contains a snippet of content relevant to the search query. Use the DocumentChunk.name field of each result with get_documents to retrieve the full document content. |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies the return format ('chunks of text, names, and URLs'), mentions the limitation of returned content ('not detailed enough'), and describes the relationship with get_documents. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 appropriately sized but could be more front-loaded. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, but the extensive product list (13 bullet points) occupies significant space without adding critical information for tool selection. The workflow guidance at the end is valuable but could be integrated more efficiently.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (search across multiple domains), rich annotations, complete schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description provides excellent contextual completeness. It covers purpose, scope, limitations, and workflow with sibling tools, making it sufficient for an agent to understand when and how to use this tool effectively.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100% with a single 'query' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema, but it does provide context about what types of queries are appropriate (documentation about listed Google products). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is complete.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'find documentation about Google developer products' and lists specific domains covered. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning search functionality versus retrieval with get_documents, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with answer_query. The verb 'find' is specific enough for a search tool.
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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'If the returned chunks are not detailed enough... use get_documents with the parent from this tool's output.' It establishes a clear workflow where search_documents is for initial searching and get_documents is for retrieving full content when needed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!