Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
google-docs-mcp

google-docs-mcp

by dbuxton
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

docs_reply_to_comment

Reply to an existing comment in a Google Doc using its ID and reply text. Engage with feedback directly without altering the document.

Instructions

Reply to an existing comment on a Google Doc.

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": {
      "doc_id": "<doc_id>",
      "comment_id": "<comment_id>",
      "reply": "<reply>"
    },
    "name": "docs_reply_to_comment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
replyYesReply text to post
doc_idYesGoogle Doc ID
comment_idYesID of the comment to reply to (from docs_read_comments)

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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 states that a reply is posted but does not mention whether the action is destructive, requires permissions, changes comment state, or can fail if the comment is resolved/deleted.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single clear sentence with zero filler. It is front-loaded and immediately tells the agent the purpose.

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?

For a low-complexity operation with fully documented parameters and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It clearly identifies the action and resource, though it could be more complete with behavioral caveats.

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?

The schema covers all three parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond the schema, but it also does not need to.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Reply') and resource ('an existing comment on a Google Doc'). The word 'existing' distinguishes this from docs_add_comment, so an agent can tell the tools apart without opening the schema.

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?

The phrase 'existing comment' implies this tool is for responding to comments already present, not for creating new ones. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over docs_add_comment or mention any exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools