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. It mentions the return type ('str: A formatted list') but lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires specific permissions, how pagination works with 'page_size', or potential rate limits. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise with two sentences: one for the purpose and one for the return value. It's front-loaded with the core functionality, and there's no redundant information. However, the return statement could be integrated more smoothly, but it doesn't detract significantly from clarity.

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's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is partially complete. It states the purpose and return format, but lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and behavioral details. The output schema existence means return values are documented elsewhere, but overall, it's inadequate for full understanding without external schema references.

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 parameters—it doesn't explain what 'page_size', 'space_type', or 'user_google_email' mean, their valid values, or how they affect the listing. With 3 parameters and low coverage, the description fails to compensate, leaving semantics unclear.

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: 'Lists Google Chat spaces (rooms and direct messages) accessible to the user.' It specifies the verb ('Lists'), resource ('Google Chat spaces'), and scope ('accessible to the user'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_calendars' or 'list_docs_in_folder', though the resource specificity helps.

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 prerequisites (e.g., authentication needs), compare to similar tools like 'list_drive_items', or specify scenarios where this tool is preferred. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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