append_to_docAppend text to the end of a Google Doc Hermoso can reach — one it created (pass the documentId from create_doc) or one the user handed over with the Google file picker in the app (find its id with list_drive_files).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| text | Yes | text to append at the end of the doc | |
| documentId | Yes | the document id from create_doc |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the reachability constraint (only docs Hermoso can access), which is useful behavioral context beyond annotations. It does not cover error handling or side effects, but the append action is straightforward.
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 a single sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and then explains scope. It is concise but manages to pack essential usage detail 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 append tool with clear schema and annotations, the description adequately covers how to obtain the documentId and what scope is allowed. With no output schema, the description doesn't need to detail return values. It misses explicit mention of alternatives (e.g., append_to_sheet) but is otherwise complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the documentId's provenance (from create_doc or list_drive_files), which is not in the schema. The text parameter is self-explanatory in the schema, so no further semantics needed.
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 action ('Append text to the end of a Google Doc') with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes scope by specifying which documents are reachable, setting it apart from related tools like update_doc and append_to_sheet.
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?
Provides clear context on when to use: it targets documents Hermoso can access (created via create_doc or user-provided via file picker, found via list_drive_files). This guides the agent on sourcing the documentId. It does not explicitly mention alternatives like update_doc for other modifications, but the append-at-end scope is implicit.
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.
With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.
The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.
293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.
The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.