ShareWatch

Set File Read-Only

set_file_read_only

DestructiveIdempotent

Mark a file as read-only or read-write. Read-only files can be read but not updated through ShareWatch. This is enforced at the proxy layer regardless of Google Drive permissions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_id`	Yes	The file ID
`read_only`	Yes	True to make read-only, false to allow writes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file_id`	Yes
`file_name`	No
`read_only`	Yes
`enforced_by`	Yes	where the restriction is applied — always 'sharewatch': the file's Google Drive permissions are unchanged and people can still edit it directly

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already convey mutation, idempotency, and destructiveness, so the bar for added value is lower. The description adds meaningful behavior: read-only files can still be read, enforcement happens at the proxy layer, and it applies regardless of Drive permissions. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the action, the observable consequence, and the enforcement layer. Information is front-loaded and there is no filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with a full output schema and annotations, the description covers the essential semantics and even clarifies edge behavior around Google Drive permissions. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 both file_id and read_only are adequately described in the schema. The tool description restates the effect of read_only but does not add much beyond the schema. This matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema already documents parameters well.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Mark a file as read-only or read-write.' It clearly conveys the action and both directions of the toggle. It does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the semantics are distinct enough from delete_file, move_file, and block_file.

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?

The description provides clear context: this controls whether files can be updated through ShareWatch, and it operates at the proxy layer independent of Google Drive permissions. It implies when to use it—when ShareWatch-level write protection is needed—but it stops short of explicitly contrasting it with alternatives or stating when not to use it.

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?