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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions the tool retrieves details (implying a read-only operation), it doesn't clarify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if the presentation doesn't exist. The description is minimal and lacks critical behavioral context for a tool with required parameters.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized, with a clear purpose statement followed by separate 'Args' and 'Returns' sections. Every sentence adds value: the first states the tool's function, and the subsequent sections document inputs and outputs efficiently. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the sections into a single paragraph, but the structure enhances readability.

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 that there's an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description doesn't need to detail return values, and it appropriately summarizes them as 'Details about the presentation including title, slides count, and metadata.' However, for a tool with no annotations and 2 required parameters, the description lacks completeness in behavioral aspects like error handling or usage context, leaving gaps for the agent.

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 by documenting both parameters in the 'Args' section: 'user_google_email' and 'presentation_id'. It adds meaning by specifying that the email is required and belongs to the user, and that the ID identifies the presentation to retrieve. However, it doesn't explain format expectations (e.g., email validation, ID structure) beyond what the schema titles imply.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get details about a Google Slides presentation.' It specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('Google Slides presentation'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_spreadsheet_info' or 'get_doc_content' that serve similar purposes for different Google Workspace resources.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_presentation_comment' or 'read_presentation_comments' that might be relevant for presentation-related tasks, nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints beyond the required parameters.

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