gdocs-mcp

List who a doc is shared with

list_permissions

Retrieve a Google Doc's sharing permissions to see who has access and their roles, including domain and anyone-with-link grants.

Instructions

List the permissions on a Google Doc (people, groups, domain, anyone-with-link) with their roles. Each entry carries a subject naming who it covers — an email, " (domain)", or "anyone with the link" — since a domain or link grant has no email. For those, allowFileDiscovery: true means the file also surfaces in that audience's search, not merely that it opens with the link. Note a doc created under a Workspace domain may already carry a domain grant before you share it.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "list_permissions"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	The doc: a Drive id or URL, or /folder/doc. A tab path names its doc.
`account`	No	Google account email to use. Defaults to GDOCS_DEFAULT_ACCOUNT, or the sole account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed3 schema fields changedv1.0.0Oct 31, 2026

removedInput schema / properties / documentId
```
Removed value: -{
-  "type": "string"
-}
```

addedInput schema / properties / path

Added value: +{
+  "description": "The doc: a Drive id or URL, or /folder/doc. A tab path names its doc.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "documentId"
-]New value: +[
+  "path"
+]

First observedv0.1.1Aug 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden well: it discloses the return model (subject naming scheme), explains the non-obvious allowFileDiscovery semantics, and warns that a doc may already carry a domain grant. It stops short of stating permissions/auth requirements or that the operation is non-mutating, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'List'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by tightly scoped clarifications on subject formatting and grant semantics. Dense but every sentence adds interpretation the agent needs; only the final 'note' is somewhat peripheral.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by explaining the entry shape (subject values, roles, allowFileDiscovery). Little is missing for an agent to call and interpret this tool, though pagination/ordering behavior is unaddressed.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (path, account) are fully documented in the schema, so baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: 'List the permissions on a Google Doc ... with their roles', and enumerates the grant types (people, groups, domain, anyone-with-link). This clearly differentiates it from the mutating siblings share_doc and unshare_doc.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied — it's an inspection tool you'd call before/after share_doc or unshare_doc — but the description never explicitly states when to use this versus those alternatives, nor any preconditions. The closing note about pre-existing domain grants hints at a use case without framing it as guidance.

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