google-workspace-mcp-advanced

update_google_doc

Update a Google Doc by uploading a local file; use dry_run to preview changes before applying.

Instructions

Upload content from a local file to its linked Google Doc. SAFETY: Defaults to dry_run=True. Usage must explicitly set dry_run=False to apply changes.

Args: user_google_email: The user's Google email address. Required. local_path: Path to the local file. force: If True, overwrite even if the remote file has changed since last sync. dry_run: If True (default), return a diff of changes instead of updating. Set to False to apply.

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": {
      "user_google_email": "<user_google_email>",
      "local_path": "<local_path>"
    },
    "name": "update_google_doc"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_google_email`	Yes
`local_path`	Yes
`force`	No
`dry_run`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.10Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses dry_run behavior and force parameter but does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or whether content replaces or appends. Annotations are absent, so the description partially fulfills the burden.

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?

Efficiently structured: 2-line purpose followed by bulleted args. Every sentence adds value, and the safety note is prominent. No wasted words.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It covers the core workflow and parameters, but could mention the linking prerequisite. Slightly incomplete for a 4-param tool with no annotations.

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?

All four parameters are described with purpose and constraints (e.g., dry_run defaults to True, force overwrites). Since schema coverage is 0%, the description compensates well by adding meaning beyond the raw schema.

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 'Upload content from a local file to its linked Google Doc,' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_update_doc or insert_doc_elements by focusing on local file upload to a pre-linked doc.

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 mentions the dry_run default and requirement to set it to False for actual updates, providing safety guidance. However, it does not compare directly with alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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

Deploy Server