Skip to main content
Glama
EveryInc

google-workspace-mcp-server

by EveryInc
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Reply to Comment

drive_reply_to_comment

Reply to a comment on a Google Doc by providing the file ID, comment ID, and reply text.

Instructions

Reply to an existing comment on a Google Doc.

Args:

  • file_id (string): The ID of the Google Doc

  • comment_id (string): The ID of the comment to reply to

  • content (string): The text content of the reply

Returns: { "id": string, "content": string, "author": string, "createdTime": string }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_idYesThe ID of the Google Doc containing the comment
comment_idYesThe ID of the comment to reply to
contentYesThe text content of the reply

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.4.3

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a write operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the return object structure, but does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or permissions beyond what annotations provide.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single concise purpose statement followed by neatly formatted arguments and return value. All information is essential and front-loaded, with no filler.

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?

For a simple mutation tool with three string parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the purpose, parameters, and return format. It lacks when-to-use guidance and error handling, but the tool's simplicity and annotations make it reasonably complete.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters, and the description repeats the same information without adding examples, constraints, or additional semantics. This matches the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'Reply to an existing comment on a Google Doc' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like drive_create_comment (creates a new comment) and drive_delete_comment.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies the tool is for replying to existing comments but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. Sibling tools are listed but no comparative guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools