Gmail Multi-Inbox MCP Server

docs_replace_text

Replace all occurrences of specified text in a Google Doc. Provide the document ID, search term, and replacement to update content.

Instructions

Find and replace all occurrences of text throughout 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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "document_id": "<document_id>",
      "find": "<find>",
      "replace_with": "<replace_with>"
    },
    "name": "docs_replace_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`find`	Yes	Text to find.
`account`	Yes	Account id.
`match_case`	No	Case-sensitive match (default false).
`document_id`	Yes	Google Docs document ID.
`replace_with`	Yes	Replacement text.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.2Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'all occurrences' but fails to note that the operation permanently modifies the document, any permission requirements, or what the tool returns. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.

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 filler words. It front-loads the action and target, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

The tool is simple and the schema fully documents parameters, so the core function is adequately described. However, the lack of annotations and output schema leaves out important context such as side effects, reversibility, and return values, making it only marginally complete.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, but does clarify that the replacement applies to all occurrences, which is a slight semantic addition.

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 action (find and replace) and the target (a Google Doc), specifying the scope as 'all occurrences'. It is distinct from sibling tools like docs_append or docs_apply_style, though it does not explicitly name 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus other docs-related tools, nor are any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when it should be chosen.

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

Deploy Server