Google Workspace MCP

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.4.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific Google Workspace components like Docs or Sheets, but some overlap exists between read_sheet_grid and read_sheet_values which both read sheet data with slightly different scopes. The descriptions help clarify the differences, but an agent might occasionally confuse these similar tools.
Naming Consistency4/5
Tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern throughout, such as diagnose_google_auth and export_google_file, with clear and descriptive naming. There are minor deviations like sheet_to_json which uses 'to' instead of a verb, but overall the naming is highly predictable and readable.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Google Workspace server, covering authentication, file operations, and detailed sheet/document interactions. Each tool earns its place by addressing specific needs without being excessive or insufficient for the domain.
Completeness3/5
The tool set covers reading and exporting files well, but there are notable gaps in CRUD operations for the domain, such as creating, updating, or deleting Google Docs or Sheets. While tools like export_google_file and read_google_doc handle retrieval, the lack of write or modify tools limits full lifecycle coverage.
Average 3/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Read raw Google Sheets values'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'raw values' entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 5 parameters.
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, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity and is front-loaded with the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it doesn't address parameter meanings or behavioral details. However, the presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to explain return values, preventing a lower score. This is the minimum viable for a read operation with structured output.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no information about any parameters beyond implying 'range_a1' relates to 'A1 range'. It doesn't explain what 'spreadsheet_id_or_url', 'major_dimension', 'value_render_option', or 'date_time_render_option' mean or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read raw Google Sheets values') and the resource ('for an A1 range'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'read_sheet_grid' or 'search_sheet', which likely have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_sheet_grid' or 'search_sheet'. It mentions 'raw values' and 'A1 range', but this is part of the purpose statement rather than explicit usage instructions. No context or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('download') but doesn't cover permissions needed, rate limits, file formats supported, error handling, or whether it overwrites existing files. For a tool that likely involves file system operations and API calls, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action and resource. It wastes no words and is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description's job is reduced. However, with no annotations, 3 parameters (one undocumented due to 0% schema coverage), and operations involving downloads and file system changes, the description is incomplete. It should address more behavioral aspects like error cases or output specifics beyond what the output schema might provide.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It mentions 'document_id_or_url' and 'output_dir' implicitly but doesn't explain what 'tab_id' does or provide details on parameter formats (e.g., URL patterns, directory paths). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names, failing to fully address the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('download') and resource ('image objects from a Google Doc'), specifying the destination ('to a local folder'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_google_doc' or 'inspect_sheet_images' by focusing on downloading images rather than reading content or inspecting images in sheets. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as 'export_google_file', which might handle similar operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'export_google_file' or 'inspect_sheet_images'. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., authentication), exclusions (e.g., not for text extraction), or specific scenarios (e.g., batch image extraction). Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions mapping to header row but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like error handling (e.g., invalid row index), permissions needed, rate limits, or output format details. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
Single sentence, zero waste, front-loaded with the core action. Every word earns its place by specifying the fetch operation and header mapping without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial context like parameter semantics and behavioral transparency. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall it's minimally adequate with clear deficiencies.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions mapping to header row, which relates to the 'header_row' parameter, but doesn't explain the meaning or usage of other parameters like spreadsheet_id_or_url, sheet_name, or row_index. The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('fetch') and resource ('one Google Sheets row'), and specifies the mapping to header row. It distinguishes from siblings like read_sheet_grid or read_sheet_values by focusing on single-row retrieval with header mapping, though not explicitly naming alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like read_sheet_values or search_sheet. The description implies it's for fetching a specific row with header mapping, but lacks explicit context or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states what data is read without behavioral details like permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or output format. It mentions data types but lacks operational context.
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, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loaded with the core action and key details. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given complexity (read operation with 2 params, no annotations) and an output schema (which covers return values), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It specifies data types read but misses parameter guidance and behavioral context, leaving gaps for effective tool use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain 'spreadsheet_id_or_url' format, 'range_a1' syntax, or default behavior when range is null, leaving parameters undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Read') and resource ('Google Sheets grid data') with specific data types included (formatted values, formulas, notes, and links). It distinguishes from sibling 'read_sheet_values' by specifying richer data content, though not explicitly naming alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read_sheet_values' or 'sheet_to_json' is provided. The description implies usage for reading comprehensive sheet data but lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the search functionality but doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, performance characteristics (e.g., speed on large sheets), authentication requirements, error handling, or what happens with multiple matches. The description is too minimal for a tool with 4 parameters.
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 extremely concise at just one sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently communicates the basic purpose. Every word earns its place, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for a search tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial context about behavior, parameter usage, and relationship to sibling tools. The existence of an output schema raises the baseline slightly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but fails to do so. It mentions searching 'across one sheet or all sheets' which hints at the sheet_name parameter, but doesn't explain the spreadsheet_id_or_url format, what 'needle' represents, or the case_sensitive option. The description adds minimal value beyond what's implied by parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Search text'), target ('across one sheet or all sheets'), and outcome ('return matching cells'). It distinguishes from siblings like read_sheet_values or read_sheet_grid by focusing on text search rather than data retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential similar search tools that might exist.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose search_sheet over other tools like read_sheet_values for data extraction or how it relates to siblings like sheet_to_json. There's no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a mutation (exporting changes format) but doesn't clarify if it modifies the original file, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the output entails (e.g., file creation, download link). The description lacks details on error handling, performance, or side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potential write operations.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It lists export formats clearly and avoids redundancy. Every part earns its place by specifying the action, resource, and target formats concisely.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and formats but lacks details on usage, behavior, and parameter meanings. The output schema likely handles return values, reducing the need for output explanation, but the description doesn't fully address the tool's complexity and mutation aspects.
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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics by implying 'mime_type' relates to export formats (PDF, XLSX, etc.) and 'file_id_or_url' identifies the source, but doesn't explain parameter roles, formats, or constraints (e.g., valid MIME types, URL patterns). It partially compensates for the coverage gap but leaves parameters largely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Export') and resource ('Google Workspace file'), specifying the target formats (PDF, XLSX, HTML zip, Markdown, plain text). It distinguishes from siblings like 'read_google_doc' or 'download_google_doc_images' by focusing on format conversion rather than reading or downloading images. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings (e.g., 'sheet_to_json' also exports data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., file accessibility, authentication), compare to siblings like 'read_google_doc' for viewing or 'sheet_to_json' for JSON export, or specify use cases (e.g., for archival, sharing in non-Google formats). The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the method ('via XLSX export') and detection of 'IMAGE() formulas', but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies files, authentication requirements, rate limits, output format (though an output schema exists), or error handling. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational traits.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and method concisely. There's no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (involving Google Sheets, XLSX export, and image/formula detection), no annotations, and an output schema (which mitigates the need to describe return values), the description is incomplete. It covers the 'what' but misses the 'how' and 'when'—lacking usage context, behavioral details, and parameter explanations. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline, but the gaps in other areas keep it at a minimal viable level.
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 description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the three parameters (spreadsheet_id_or_url, sheet_name, output_dir) are undocumented in both the schema and description. The description implies context about inspecting images and formulas but doesn't explain how parameters relate to this, such as what 'output_dir' controls or if 'sheet_name' limits the inspection scope. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does minimal work, and the description doesn't compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Inspect Google Sheets images via XLSX export and detect IMAGE() formulas.' It specifies the verb ('inspect'), resource ('Google Sheets images'), and method ('via XLSX export'), which is specific and actionable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'download_google_doc_images' or 'export_google_file', which could have overlapping functionality.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., authentication, file access), use cases (e.g., analyzing embedded images vs. formulas), or exclusions (e.g., not for downloading images directly). With sibling tools like 'download_google_doc_images' and 'export_google_file', the lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool resolves 'basic metadata' but doesn't specify what that includes (e.g., file name, type, size, permissions), whether it requires authentication, if it has rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is somewhat complete but lacks depth. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs or error handling, which are important for a tool interacting with external services like Google Drive, leaving room for improvement.
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 has 0% description coverage, but the description doesn't add any meaningful details about the parameter 'file_id_or_url'. It doesn't explain what formats are accepted (e.g., file ID vs. full URL), examples, or constraints. Since the parameter count is low (1), the baseline is 4, but the lack of compensation for the schema gap reduces the score to 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('resolve') and resource ('basic metadata for a Google Docs, Sheets, or Drive file'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential sibling tools like 'inspect_sheet_images' or 'read_google_doc', which might also retrieve metadata, so it doesn't achieve full differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when it's appropriate (e.g., for quick metadata checks) or when not to use it (e.g., for detailed content access), nor does it refer to sibling tools like 'read_google_doc' or 'export_google_file' as alternatives for different needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the conversion action but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or output format specifics. This is inadequate for a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but lacks details on parameter usage, behavioral traits, and differentiation from siblings, leaving gaps that the agent must infer from other sources.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'using the header row', which hints at the 'header_row' parameter, but does not explain other parameters like 'spreadsheet_id_or_url', 'sheet_name', 'start_row', or 'end_row'. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: converting a Google Sheets tab into JSON records using the header row. It specifies the verb 'convert' and resource 'Google Sheets tab', but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'read_sheet_values' or 'read_sheet_grid', which might also read sheet data in different formats.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'read_sheet_values' or 'read_sheet_grid', nor does it specify use cases or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Return a quick summary' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify what information the summary contains, whether it checks authentication validity or just configuration, potential error conditions, or any rate limits. For an authentication diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in this concise formulation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that this tool has an output schema (which should document the return format), the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, for an authentication diagnostic tool with no annotations, the description should provide more context about what 'active Google authentication setup' means and what kind of summary to expect. The presence of an output schema helps, but the description remains somewhat minimal for this context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. Since there are no parameters to document, the baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('active Google authentication setup'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this authentication diagnostic tool from its sibling tools which are all focused on Google document/spreadsheet operations rather than authentication.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing authentication to be configured first), troubleshooting scenarios, or how this differs from other authentication-related tools that might exist. The agent receives no usage context beyond the basic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the basic operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation (implied but not explicit). The description doesn't add meaningful context beyond the basic function.
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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place by specifying the action, target, and output format without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial context like authentication, error cases, or parameter usage. The output schema likely handles return values, but the description doesn't address behavioral or usage gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'document_id_or_url' format is expected, what 'tab_id' refers to, or how 'download_images' and 'output_dir' interact. However, with 4 parameters and an output schema present, the baseline is 3 as the schema provides structure but no semantic 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 specific action ('Read a Google Doc') and the output format ('as structured JSON with text, tables, and image metadata'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'export_google_file' or 'read_sheet_grid' by specifying it's for Google Docs with JSON output containing specific content types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention when to use 'read_google_doc' versus 'export_google_file' or 'download_google_doc_images', nor does it specify prerequisites like authentication or document access requirements.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![google-workspace-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NgoQuocViet2001/google-workspace-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NgoQuocViet2001/google-workspace-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![google-workspace-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NgoQuocViet2001/google-workspace-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/NgoQuocViet2001/google-workspace-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/NgoQuocViet2001/google-workspace-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server