Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Sites MCP

Google Sites MCP

by RXDG2908
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Read visible text of the page

gsites_get_text
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the visible text of the current Google Sites page or editor, truncated at 25,000 characters, to verify content after edits.

Instructions

Return the visible text of the current page/editor (truncated at 25000 chars). Use to verify content after edits.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "gsites_get_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a safe, idempotent read. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the output is capped at 25000 chars, so the agent knows large pages will be truncated and verification may be partial. It does not say whether the text comes from the editing surface or the published page, a minor residual 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?

Two short sentences, no filler, and the truncation constraint is packed into the first sentence where it matters. Every clause carries information.

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 parameterless read tool with annotations covering the safety profile and no output schema, this covers purpose, use case, and output size limit. Only the exact shape of the returned text (plain text, line structure) and the editor-vs-published scope are left implicit.

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?

Zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Return the visible text of the current page/editor'. The 'visible text' phrasing distinguishes it from gsites_screenshot and gsites_snapshot implicitly, but no sibling is named, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

Explicitly gives a use case — 'Use to verify content after edits' — which tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of exclusions, e.g. whether to prefer gsites_snapshot or gsites_screenshot for structural or visual verification.

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