Google Workspace MCP Server

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 return type ('str: Formatted messages') but doesn't cover critical aspects like pagination behavior (implied by 'page_size' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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 brief and front-loaded with the main action, followed by a return statement. It avoids unnecessary words, but the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly (e.g., 'Retrieves and returns formatted messages...'). Overall, it's efficient but not perfectly structured.

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 the tool has an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description doesn't need to detail outputs. However, with 4 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description should provide more context about parameter meanings and behavioral traits. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps in guiding usage and transparency.

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%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds no information about the four parameters (e.g., what 'space_id' or 'user_google_email' represent, how 'order_by' works, or what 'page_size' controls). This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, leaving parameters largely unexplained.

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 clearly states the verb 'retrieves' and the resource 'messages from a Google Chat space', making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_messages' or 'send_message', which prevents a perfect score.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_messages' or 'list_spaces'. The description lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a specific space ID or user email, which are required parameters but not explained in usage terms.

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