Skip to main content
Glama

Update doc settings

update_doc_settings
DestructiveIdempotent

Change a doc the user OWNS: password protection (password_on / password_value), ask viewers for their email before viewing (ask_name), allow file downloads (allow_downloads), view notifications for the owner (notify), and the doc's title (title). Only the fields you pass are changed. Renaming changes the display title only and keeps the link. To change the link itself, the part after the last slash, pass new_slug. That breaks the old link for everyone who has it, so the first call changes nothing and returns a warning with both links. Pass it on, and only after the person says yes, call again with the same new_slug and confirm_new_link true. Identify the doc via doc_name (fuzzy-matched) or slug.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugNoThe doc's slug or share URL.
titleNoA new title for the doc (max 500 chars). The link stays the same.
notifyNoNotify the owner on views.
accountNoEmail address of the farm to act on. Omit for the signed-in farm. Only a connected account is accepted; call list_accounts to see which.
ask_nameNoAsk each viewer for their email before showing the doc. Despite the field name it asks for an email, not a name.
doc_nameNoName of the doc (fuzzy-matched). Pass this or slug.
new_slugNoA new ending for the share link, the part after the last slash. The old link stops working. Without confirm_new_link nothing changes and you get the warning to pass on.
password_onNoRequire a password to view.
password_valueNoThe password. Setting this also turns password_on on.
allow_downloadsNoLet viewers download the original file.
confirm_new_linkNoSet true only after the person has seen the warning about the old link and said yes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirm_new_link
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Set true only after the person has seen the warning about the old link and said yes.",
      +  "type": "boolean"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / new_slug
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "A new ending for the share link, the part after the last slash. The old link stops working. Without confirm_new_link nothing changes and you get the warning to pass on.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare destructive and idempotent, and the description substantially enriches that: renaming keeps the link, new_slug permanently breaks the old link for everyone holding it, the first call changes nothing and returns a warning, and confirmation is required before the destructive action. This is exactly the 'what gets destroyed / what happens next' context the agent needs.

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?

Front-loaded with the operation and its field surface before the dangerous-link explanation. The safety flow is necessarily multi-sentence; a small amount of the middle (field enumeration) repeats the schema, but nothing is truly wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With 11 params, no output schema, and destructive behavior, the description covers the ownership requirement, patch semantics, and the two-phase link-change return ('returns a warning with both links'). It omits only the account/farm scoping, which the schema already documents.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter's meaning is already carried by the schema. The description restates the field list and the new_slug/confirm_new_link flow but adds little that the per-parameter schema descriptions do not already say; baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Change a doc ... settings') and enumerates the exact settings surface (password, ask_name, allow_downloads, notify, title, slug). This separates it cleanly from content-editing siblings like patch_doc and app_apply_edits, which an agent can rule out without opening any schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives clear preconditions ('a doc the user OWNS') and patch semantics ('Only the fields you pass are changed'), plus an explicit multi-step procedure for new_slug. It does not name sibling alternatives for related tasks (e.g. content edits via patch_doc), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources