ARL-DMS MCP Server

dms_fetch

Retrieve the text content of publicly shared Google Drive documents by file ID. Supports docx, gdoc, xlsx, gslides, and PDF attempts, returning up to 20,000 characters for quick reference or analysis.

Instructions

Fetch the text content of a publicly shared Google Drive document (docx/gdoc/xlsx/gslides/pdf attempts) by drive id. Returns up to 20k chars.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "dms_fetch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Drive file id
`name`	No	Optional file name to detect format

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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 discloses a 20k character limit and that it attempts several formats, but does not mention authentication requirements, error handling for non-public documents, or rate limits. The 'attempts' phrasing is vague about success guarantees.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope. Every word is earned; no filler or repetition. Efficiently conveys purpose and return limit.

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 fetch tool with two params and no output schema, the description covers what it does, the input, return limit, and format support. However, it omits error scenarios (e.g., file not found, not public) and does not clarify authentication needs or whether the tool works for non-public documents.

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 100% with descriptions for both params. The description adds context about public sharing and format attempts but does not explicitly connect the optional 'name' parameter to format detection. It adds some value beyond the schema but could be more explicit.

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 clearly states 'Fetch the text content of a publicly shared Google Drive document by drive id', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like dms_search (search) and dms_details (metadata) by focusing on content retrieval.

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 description implies usage when you need text content from a publicly shared document with a drive ID, but it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives like dms_details for metadata or dms_search for finding documents.

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

Deploy Server