grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

chat.spaces.messagePins.create

Creates a message pin in a specified Google Chat space to keep an important message visible, then returns the API response as JSON.

Instructions

Creates a message pin. Requires user authentication with one of the following authorization scopes: - https://www.googleapis.com/auth/chat.spaces.pins - https://www.googleapis.com/auth/chat.spaces [HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON MessagePin object accepting message, name; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: delete, list.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`parent`	Yes	[URL path segment] Required. The parent space in which to create the message pin. Format: spaces/{space}
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON MessagePin object.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type MessagePin: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`message`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body_file / description

Previous value: -"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters."New value: +"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON MessagePin object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type MessagePin: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / parent / description

Previous value: -"Required. The parent space in which to create the message pin. Format: spaces/{space}"New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The parent space in which to create the message pin. Format: spaces/{space}"

addedInput schema / properties / parent / pattern
```
Added value: +"^spaces/[^/]+$"
```

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

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 mutation nature (HTTP POST, creates or triggers a change), the auth model and scopes, and the safety-profile refusal behavior. It stops short of covering idempotency, rate limits, or what happens on a duplicate pin, which are the main remaining gaps.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the remaining content is a dense run-on mixing auth links, scope lists, safety-profile notes, body routing, and sibling names. The information is relevant but could be structured more cleanly.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need only light mention, and the description covers auth, safety, and body structure for a mutation tool. It is nearly complete, missing only edge-case behavior such as duplicate pins or permission failures.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters including the MessagePin body fields. The description restates the body routing (via `params` or `body_file`) and the `message`/`name` fields, adding little beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 and resource ("Creates a message pin") and explicitly names the sibling operations over the same resource ("delete, list"), so an agent can distinguish create from delete/list without opening a schema. The scope is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides clear context: user-authentication requirement, acceptable authorization scopes, and the fact that it is refused under --readonly safety profiles. It does not spell out when to prefer this over other pin operations beyond naming the siblings, so it falls short of a full when/when-not routing guide.

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

Deploy Server