Google Sites MCP

by RXDG2908

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Move a section

gsites_move_section

Move a page section from one position to another to reorder a Google Sites page and return the updated outline.

Instructions

Reorder the page: drag section from so that it ends up at position to (1-based, see gsites_list_sections). Returns the new outline.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "from": "<from>",
      "to": "<to>"
    },
    "name": "gsites_move_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	Yes
`from`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Nov 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the operation is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, and the description is consistent with that, adding that the return value is the new outline. It does not disclose preconditions (must a page be open?), what happens if `to` exceeds the section count, or why the operation is non-idempotent.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the effect, the index semantics, a helper tool, and the return value with no wasted wording.

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 two-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers both parameters, the 1-based indexing convention, and the returned outline. Only the operational preconditions and out-of-range behavior are missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well: `from` is the section to drag and `to` is the target position, explicitly 1-based, with a pointer to gsites_list_sections for index discovery. It leaves edge cases (from == to, out-of-range `to`) unexplained.

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 names a specific verb ('Reorder'/'drag') and resource ('section') and states the exact effect: section `from` ends up at position `to`. This is clearly distinct from the neighboring gsites_duplicate_section and gsites_delete_section, which do different things to a section.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Reorder the page' and the description helpfully routes the agent to gsites_list_sections to obtain the 1-based indices. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., use delete/duplicate instead, or what preconditions like an open page or site must hold).

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