Docs Bridge

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

docs_copy

Duplicate a Google Doc with a new title and get the copy's URL. Use it to clone documents before editing or sharing without altering the original.

Instructions

Make a copy of a Google Doc (Docs' own "Make a copy") with a new title. Returns the copy's URL.

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": "<doc>"
    },
    "name": "docs_copy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`doc`	Yes	Google Docs URL or document id.
`title`	No
`account`	No	Which signed-in Google account to use: an index as in /u/N/ URLs (0 = first account) or an email address. Omit for the browser default. Use this for documents owned by a second (e.g. school) account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the return value ('Returns the copy's URL') and that native Docs copy semantics apply, but says nothing about permissions needed, whether sharing/comments carry over, or where the copy is placed (e.g. same folder). Modest but real disclosure.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the return value. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 3-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose and return value, which is the main gap-closing information. It still omits permission requirements and title optionality, leaving the agent to infer behavior.

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 67%: `doc` and `account` are well documented in the schema, but `title` has no description. The phrase 'with a new title' partly compensates by indicating the title param names the copy, though it does not clarify whether title is optional or defaults to 'Copy of X'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Make a copy of a Google Doc') and clarifies it maps to Docs' native 'Make a copy', which distinguishes it from docs_create and docs_rename. It does not explicitly name those siblings, but the copy action 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to copy versus create from scratch (docs_create) or from a template (docs_templates), nor any prerequisites such as access rights on the source doc. Usage is only implied by the verb.

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