verified-googledocs-mcp

list_open_items

Get all open comments and pending suggested edits on a Google Doc in one view. Filter suggestions by tab or include all tabs to review unresolved feedback.

Instructions

List all open comments and pending suggested edits on a document.

Use this tool when you need a single unified view of all open review items on a document. Returns both Drive-level comments (labeled scope='document') and per-tab suggested edits in one response.

Comments come from the Drive API and cannot be attributed to a specific tab — Drive comment anchors are opaque. If tab_id is provided it filters the suggestions returned to that tab only. To include suggestions from every tab, set include_all_tabs=true. Comments are always returned document-wide regardless of tab_id.

Suggestions are extracted from the raw Docs JSON (suggestedInsertionIds / suggestedDeletionIds / suggestedTextStyleChanges) and are per-tab. The document is fetched with suggestionsViewMode=SUGGESTIONS_INLINE so that suggestion fields are populated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`doc_id`	Yes
`tab_id`	No
`include_all_tabs`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so excellently. It discloses that comments cannot be tab-attributed, are always returned document-wide, tab_id only filters suggestions, and suggestions are extracted from raw Docs JSON using suggestion fields with SUGGESTIONS_INLINE mode. These are meaningful behavioral insights beyond the schema.

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?

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, then provides usage guidance, then technical caveats. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is justified by the complexity of the tool's comment-versus-suggestion scoping behavior.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description is complete for a tool of this complexity, especially with an output schema present. It covers data sources, scoping rules, parameter behavior, and the mechanism for extracting suggestions, leaving no major decision an agent must guess.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description thoroughly compensates. It explains tab_id's filtering effect, include_all_tabs=true semantics, and the document-wide behavior of comments. doc_id is inferable from 'on a document' and the schema's required field. The parameter behavior is effectively documented in prose.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List all open comments and pending suggested edits on a document.' It further distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing it returns a unified view combining Drive-level comments and per-tab suggested edits, making its scope 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use this tool when you need a single unified view of all open review items on a document.' It also explains parameter-driven usage choices such as tab_id filtering only suggestions and include_all_tabs controlling suggestion scope. However, it does not mention alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions.

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