Skip to main content
Glama

Hermoso

by io.github.hermoso-ai

Edit a Google Doc in place

update_doc
DestructiveIdempotent

EDIT a Google Doc — the correction append_to_doc cannot make, which until now meant a doc could only ever grow and a wrong line stayed in it forever. Two shapes: replacements:[{find, replace}] rewrites specific text wherever it appears (call read_doc first and match the text EXACTLY; matchCase:false ignores case), or rewrite:"…" replaces the ENTIRE body (rewrite:"" empties it). Find/replace runs immediately and REPORTS how many occurrences changed — zero matches is reported as a FAILURE to match, never as a quiet success, because a text edit that silently does nothing is worse than one that visibly fails. A whole-body rewrite is destructive: call it without confirm first to get the character count, then confirm:true + confirmCells. Both are index-free by design — an agent cannot reliably compute Google’s character offsets, and a wrong offset deletes the wrong sentence.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docUrlNoa Google Docs URL — the id is extracted from it
confirmNo
rewriteNoreplace the WHOLE body with this text ("" empties the doc)
documentIdNothe document id (from create_doc, or list_drive_files for one the user picked)
confirmCellsNoecho back the character count the unconfirmed call reported (rewrite only)
replacementsNofind/replace pairs, applied in order

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructiveHint and readOnlyHint, but the description goes well beyond that by explaining that find/replace reports occurrence counts, zero matches is a failure not a silent success, and whole-body rewrite is destructive requiring confirmation. It also discloses the index-free design rationale, adding significant behavioral context beyond the structured hints.

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 description is detailed and a bit long, but every sentence carries value—no filler or redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose and then logically structures the two modes with their requirements. Slightly overlong for a tool description, but the density of useful information justifies the length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with two operation modes, confirmation flow, failure semantics, and destructive risk, the description covers all necessary aspects. It references read_doc as a prerequisite, explains both shapes, details confirmation, and notes the design rationale. Even without an output schema, it states what the tool reports (occurrence counts), making it fully actionable.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is high (83%), but the description adds meaningful semantics for each parameter: it explains replacements find/replace/matchCase including the effect of matchCase:false, clarifies that replacements apply in order, and details the confirm/confirmCells interaction for rewrite. This exceeds the schema's descriptions and provides practical usage context.

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 states the tool edits a Google Doc in two distinct ways: find/replace on specific text or a full-body rewrite. It explicitly contrasts with append_to_doc, making it distinct from that sibling and others. The verb 'EDIT' and resource 'Google Doc' are specific, and the two modes are precisely described.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: it names append_to_doc as the alternative that cannot make corrections, and explains the two shapes with conditions. For replacements it instructs to call read_doc first and match text exactly; for rewrite it details the two-step confirm flow (call without confirm, then confirm:true + confirmCells). This is thorough and actionable.

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

All Hermoso 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources