ShareWatch

Block File Access

block_file

DestructiveIdempotent

Block MCP access to a file. Use when a user says they shared a file by mistake or wants an agent's access stopped. Blocking gates access; it does not un-share the file, so the name and ID can still appear in listings. There is no unblock tool — the user restores access from the ShareWatch dashboard, so tell them that before blocking.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	No	Why access is being revoked. Recorded in the audit log for administrators; NOT shown to the blocked caller, who sees only an opaque reference.
`file_id`	Yes	The file ID to block

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`note`	Yes	how the block can be undone — there is no unblock tool, the user restores access from the ShareWatch dashboard
`reason`	No	the reason recorded on the block, shown to whoever reviews it in the dashboard
`blocked`	Yes
`file_id`	Yes
`file_name`	No	name of the file that was blocked

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this as destructive and non-read-only, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: blocking does not un-share the file, the name and ID can still appear in listings, there is no unblock tool, and the user must restore access from the dashboard. This gives an agent a realistic model of the operation's side effects and recovery path.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the action, the use case, and the critical caveat about irreversibility and the dashboard. The most important behavioral constraint is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a two-parameter tool with a full input schema and output schema, this description covers the essential operational context: when to invoke it, what it does and does not do, and what the user must expect afterward. Nothing critical is missing.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description does not need to explain parameters further, and it does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides, which meets the baseline for fully covered schemas.

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?

States a specific action and resource: "Block MCP access to a file." It also differentiates the behavior from un-sharing or deleting by clarifying that the file name and ID remain in listings, which helps distinguish it from siblings like delete_file and set_file_read_only.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly gives the trigger condition: "Use when a user says they shared a file by mistake or wants an agent's access stopped." It also warns there is no unblock tool and directs the user to the ShareWatch dashboard, but it does not name specific sibling alternatives or say when not to use this tool.

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

All ShareWatch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the detailed descriptions separate similar-sounding ones. A few pairs could still be confused: access_file_by_url vs request_file_access, and create_document vs format_document, but their trigger conditions are described clearly enough to avoid frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set mostly follows a verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case, e.g. create_document, update_spreadsheet, delete_file. Minor deviations like build_presentation instead of create_presentation, and format_document alongside create_document, break the pattern slightly but remain readable and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the heavy end of the scale, though the domain spans Drive, Docs, Sheets, and Slides, which justifies a large surface. Some consolidation is possible — access_file_by_url and request_file_access overlap, as do create_document and format_document — so the count feels slightly bloated rather than tightly scoped.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core file lifecycle well: create, read, update, delete, move, list, search, upload, and access control across all major Google Workspace document types. Minor gaps exist, such as no rename, copy, export, or direct sharing tool, but agents can work around these without major failures.

Resources

Need Help?