Google Workspace MCP

docs_append

Append text to the end of a Google Doc, leaving all existing content untouched. Add notes, updates, or new sections without modifying what's already written.

Instructions

Add text to the end of a Doc without touching what is already there.

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": {
      "documentId": "<documentId>",
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "docs_append"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`text`	Yes
`documentId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations by explicitly guaranteeing that existing content is preserved and that text is appended at the end. This clarifies the non-destructive mutation intent beyond the generic destructiveHint flag.

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 entire description is one compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and adds a valuable caveat about preserving existing content.

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 simple append operation with two required string parameters and annotations already indicating this is a non-read, non-destructive write, the description covers the essential behavior. It does not mention return values or confirmation, but given the simplicity this omission is minor.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description does not explicitly describe documentId or text, but the action statement 'Add text... to a Doc' makes the role of text fairly clear, and documentId is inferable from the concept of targeting a Doc. This is bare-minimum compensation for a simple two-parameter tool.

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 a specific action ('Add text'), a specific target ('Doc'), and a precise behavior ('to the end... without touching what is already there'). This distinguishes it well from siblings like docs_get and docs_create.

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 the tool is for appending content to an existing Doc, which gives a clear general context. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over docs_create or any other alternative, nor does it mention exclusions.

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