Skip to main content
Glama
taylorwilsdon

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

set_publish_settings

Update Google Forms publish settings to control template publishing and authentication requirements for viewing or submission.

Instructions

Updates the publish settings of a form.

Args:
    user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required.
    form_id (str): The ID of the form to update publish settings for.
    publish_as_template (bool): Whether to publish as a template. Defaults to False.
    require_authentication (bool): Whether to require authentication to view/submit. Defaults to False.

Returns:
    str: Confirmation message of the successful publish settings update.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
form_idYes
publish_as_templateNo
require_authenticationNo
serviceYes
user_google_emailYes

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function for the 'set_publish_settings' MCP tool. It is decorated with @server.tool() for registration, updates Google Form publish settings via the Forms API, handles authentication, and returns a confirmation message.
    @server.tool()
    @handle_http_errors("set_publish_settings", service_type="forms")
    @require_google_service("forms", "forms")
    async def set_publish_settings(
        service,
        user_google_email: str,
        form_id: str,
        publish_as_template: bool = False,
        require_authentication: bool = False
    ) -> str:
        """
        Updates the publish settings of a form.
    
        Args:
            user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required.
            form_id (str): The ID of the form to update publish settings for.
            publish_as_template (bool): Whether to publish as a template. Defaults to False.
            require_authentication (bool): Whether to require authentication to view/submit. Defaults to False.
    
        Returns:
            str: Confirmation message of the successful publish settings update.
        """
        logger.info(f"[set_publish_settings] Invoked. Email: '{user_google_email}', Form ID: {form_id}")
    
        settings_body = {
            "publishAsTemplate": publish_as_template,
            "requireAuthentication": require_authentication
        }
    
        await asyncio.to_thread(
            service.forms().setPublishSettings(formId=form_id, body=settings_body).execute
        )
    
        confirmation_message = f"Successfully updated publish settings for form {form_id} for {user_google_email}. Publish as template: {publish_as_template}, Require authentication: {require_authentication}"
        logger.info(f"Publish settings updated successfully for {user_google_email}. Form ID: {form_id}")
        return confirmation_message
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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is an update operation, implying mutation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like required permissions, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. The return value is mentioned but without details on format or potential errors. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence, followed by organized sections for arguments and returns. Each sentence adds value, with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the purpose with parameter explanations, but it remains efficient overall.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema), the description is partially complete. It excels in parameter semantics but lacks behavioral details (e.g., permissions, side effects) and usage guidelines. The return value is mentioned but without schema, leaving gaps in understanding the full operation context.

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?

The description adds significant value beyond the input schema, which has 0% schema description coverage. It explains all 5 parameters in the 'Args' section, providing semantics, data types, defaults, and required status (e.g., 'user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required.'). This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions and clarifies parameter roles effectively.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Updates the publish settings of a form.' It specifies the verb ('Updates') and resource ('publish settings of a form'), making the action explicit. However, it doesn't distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'create_form' or 'get_form', which handle different aspects of form management, so it doesn't fully differentiate from alternatives.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing form), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_form' or 'get_form'. This lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/taylorwilsdon/google_workspace_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server