Skip to main content
Glama
taylorwilsdon

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

by taylorwilsdon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Set Publish Settings

set_publish_settings

Update a Google Form's publish settings to control visibility and response collection. Set whether the form is published and accepting responses.

Instructions

Updates the publish settings of a form.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
form_idYesThe ID of the form to update publish settings for.
is_publishedNoWhether the form is published and visible to responders. Defaults to True.
user_google_emailYesThe user's Google email address. Required.
is_accepting_responsesNoWhether the form accepts responses. Only takes effect when the form is published. Defaults to True.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed13 schema fields changedv1.0.1
    • addedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Added value: +false
    • addedInput schema / properties / form_id / description
      Added value: +"The ID of the form to update publish settings for."
    • removedInput schema / properties / form_id / title
      Removed value: -"Form Id"
    • addedInput schema / properties / is_accepting_responses
      Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Whether the form accepts responses. Only takes effect when the form is published. Defaults to True.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / is_published
      Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "description": "Whether the form is published and visible to responders. Defaults to True.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / publish_as_template
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": false,
-  "title": "Publish As Template",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / require_authentication
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": false,
-  "title": "Require Authentication",
-  "type": "boolean"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / service
      Removed value: -{
-  "title": "service",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / user_google_email / description
      Added value: +"The user's Google email address. Required."
    • removedInput schema / properties / user_google_email / title
      Removed value: -"User Google Email"
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "service",
-  "user_google_email",
-  "form_id"
-]New value: +[
+  "user_google_email",
+  "form_id"
+]
    • removedInput schema / title
      Removed value: -"set_publish_settingsArguments"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "result": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "result"
+  ],
+  "type": "object",
+  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already signal a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive behavior (destructiveHint=false), so the description does not need to restate that. However, it adds no behavioral context beyond the single word 'Updates'—it does not explain immediate side effects, whether unpublishing affects existing responders, or what the output represents.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant content. It is concise without sacrificing clarity at the surface level.

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 straightforward mutation tool with complete parameter schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks usage guidance and behavioral specifics, but those are partially offset by the rich structured metadata surrounding the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, and each parameter already has a clear description and defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Updates') and resource ('publish settings of a form'), making the tool's core purpose immediately understandable. It is not a tautology, though it could more strongly differentiate itself from siblings like batch_update_form or create_form by naming the specific publish-related fields.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as batch_update_form or create_form. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditions for choosing this tool over its siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools