Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Docs Bridge

Docs Bridge

by dylansantwani
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

docs_rename

Rename a Google Doc by changing its Drive title. Provide the document URL or ID and new title, optionally selecting a signed-in account.

Instructions

Rename a Google Doc (change its title as shown in Drive).

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>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "docs_rename"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
docYesGoogle Docs URL or document id.
titleYes
accountNoWhich 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.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It only discloses that the title is changed; it omits whether write permissions are required, whether the change is immediate, or whether anything else in the document is affected.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero waste. The parenthetical adds precision without bloat.

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 simple rename mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core action but leaves meaningful gaps around permissions and behavior that annotations would normally cover. It is minimally adequate but not rich.

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 67%: 'doc' and 'account' are well described, but 'title' is not. The description's phrase 'change its title' partially compensates by implying the title parameter is the new name, but adds no format or account semantics beyond what the schema 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 ('Rename') and resource ('Google Doc'), and the parenthetical clarifies the exact change ('title as shown in Drive'). This distinct verb clearly separates it from sibling editing tools like docs_edit, docs_write, and docs_format.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The verb implies usage, but an agent gets no help distinguishing this from docs_edit or docs_fill when intent is ambiguous.

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