Google Workspace MCP Server - Control Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Chat, Forms & Drive

Manage Presentation Comment

manage_presentation_comment

Create, reply to, or resolve comments on Google Slides presentations. Specify the presentation ID and action to manage discussion threads directly.

Instructions

Manage comments on a Google Presentation.

Actions:

create: Create a new comment. Requires comment_content. Note: The Drive API cannot anchor comments to arbitrary text; Slides comments are element-scoped via the API.
reply: Reply to a comment. Requires comment_id and comment_content.
resolve: Resolve a comment. Requires comment_id.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	Yes
`comment_id`	No
`comment_content`	No
`presentation_id`	Yes
`user_google_email`	Yes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.28.0Sep 24, 2026
- removedInput schema / properties / comment_content / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / comment_content / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / comment_id / anyOf
```
Removed value: -[
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "null"
-  }
-]
```
- addedInput schema / properties / comment_id / type
```
Added value: +"string"
```
Addedv1.0.1Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a mutating, non-read-only operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds a meaningful constraint: the Drive API cannot anchor comments to arbitrary text and Slides comments are element-scoped. It does not disclose other behavioral aspects like what the API returns or whether operations are reversible, but no contradiction exists.

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 compact and well-organized with a bulleted action list. Every sentence adds useful information, and the API anchoring caveat is placed where it is relevant without bloating the text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 5-parameter tool with conditional requirements, the description covers the main invocation scenarios and the key API limitation. An output schema exists, so explaining return values is less necessary. Minor gaps remain around how comment_id is obtained and what user_google_email represents, but overall the agent has enough to act.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains which parameters each action requires and effectively documents the valid values for the action parameter (create, reply, resolve). It leaves user_google_email and presentation_id to be inferred from context, which is acceptable given their self-explanatory names.

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 the tool manages comments on a Google Presentation and enumerates the exact supported actions: create, reply, and resolve. This goes beyond the generic title and separates it from read-only comment tools like list_presentation_comments.

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 gives clear per-action parameter requirements, which implies when to use each mode. However, it never explicitly contrasts this tool with alternatives such as list_presentation_comments or manage_document_comment; usage guidance relies on inference rather than direct routing.

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

Deploy Server