Google Workspace MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements (Google email parameter suggests auth needed), rate limits, error conditions, or what happens with invalid form IDs. The Returns section describes output but doesn't cover behavioral traits.

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

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

The description is appropriately sized with clear sections (Args, Returns). The purpose statement is front-loaded, though extremely brief. The structure is logical with parameter explanations following the main statement. No wasted sentences, though the initial 'Get a form' could be more informative.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does provide parameter semantics and return value information. However, for a tool that likely requires authentication and interacts with Google Forms API, it lacks important context about permissions, error handling, and behavioral constraints. The output schema exists (implied by Returns section), so return values are covered adequately.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates well by explaining both parameters in the Args section. It clarifies that user_google_email is 'The user's Google email address' and form_id is 'The ID of the form to retrieve', adding meaningful context beyond the bare schema. For 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, this provides good semantic clarification.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states 'Get a form' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's extremely basic and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_form_response' or 'get_presentation'. It doesn't specify what kind of form (Google Forms) or provide any distinguishing characteristics beyond the minimal statement of purpose.

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

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_form_response' and 'list_form_responses', the description gives no indication of when this retrieval tool is appropriate versus those response-focused tools. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to similar tools.

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