google-workspace-mcp

docs_insert_table

Insert a table with specified rows and columns into a Google Doc. Provide document ID, row count, column count, and optional index to place the table.

Instructions

Insert a table into a Google Doc.

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": {
      "document_id": "<document_id>",
      "rows": "<rows>",
      "columns": "<columns>"
    },
    "name": "docs_insert_table"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rows`	Yes
`index`	No
`columns`	Yes
`document_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It only states the action (inserting a table) without mentioning insertion position via the 'index' parameter, size constraints, or effects on existing content. It does not contradict annotations, but it is far too sparse.

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 a single, direct sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately front-loaded and concise for the basic action it describes.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a mutation tool with 4 parameters and no annotations, the description is seriously incomplete. It lacks parameter explanations, insertion behavior, and usage guidance. An agent would not have enough information to invoke it correctly beyond guessing from the tool name and schema.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description adds no clarification for any parameter. While 'rows' and 'columns' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'index' remains ambiguous (default 1 but unclear if it's a 1-based position). The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('insert') and a specific resource ('table') with a clear target ('Google Doc'), making it distinct from sibling tools like docs_insert_paragraph and docs_insert_image. It immediately conveys the tool's core function.

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 usage context is implied: use this tool to insert a table into a document. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it differentiate from closely related tools like docs_insert_table_row or docs_add_table (if present).

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

Deploy Server