Skip to main content
Glama

Google_drive

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Drive Get File

drive_get_file
Read-onlyIdempotent

Get metadata for a specific Drive file by ID. Returns name, type, size, owners, permissions, creation date, and last modified time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fieldsNoComma-separated list of fields to include (default: id,name,mimeType,size,createdTime,modifiedTime,owners,webViewLink)
file_idYesThe ID of the file to retrieve

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idNoFile ID
nameNoFile name
sizeNoFile size in bytes
errorNoError code if connection failed
ownersNoList of file owners
sharedNoWhether file is shared
messageNoError message with instructions
parentsNoParent folder IDs
mimeTypeNoMIME type of the file
createdTimeNoISO 8601 creation timestamp
permissionsNoFile permissions
webViewLinkNoURL to open file in Google Drive web interface
modifiedTimeNoISO 8601 last modified timestamp

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "createdTime": {
+      "description": "ISO 8601 creation timestamp",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "description": "Error code if connection failed",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "description": "File ID",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "message": {
+      "description": "Error message with instructions",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mimeType": {
+      "description": "MIME type of the file",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "modifiedTime": {
+      "description": "ISO 8601 last modified timestamp",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "description": "File name",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "owners": {
+      "description": "List of file owners",
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "displayName": {
+            "description": "Owner display name",
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "emailAddress": {
+            "description": "Owner email address",
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "parents": {
+      "description": "Parent folder IDs",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "permissions": {
+      "description": "File permissions",
+      "items": {
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "shared": {
+      "description": "Whether file is shared",
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "size": {
+      "description": "File size in bytes",
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "webViewLink": {
+      "description": "URL to open file in Google Drive web interface",
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "file_id": "1a2b3c4d5e6f7g8h9i0j"
+  },
+  {
+    "fields": "id,name,mimeType,size,webViewLink",
+    "file_id": "1a2b3c4d5e6f7g8h9i0j"
+  }
+]
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond confirming it is a read operation. The description is consistent with annotations and does not contradict them.

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?

A single sentence that is front-loaded with the main purpose ('Get metadata for a specific Drive file by ID') and then lists the returned fields. No unnecessary words, highly efficient.

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 metadata retrieval tool with an output schema (indicated in context), the description is complete. It lists the key fields returned and does not need to explain return values beyond what the output schema provides.

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% (both file_id and fields have clear descriptions). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description explicitly states 'Get metadata for a specific Drive file by ID' with a specific verb and resource, and lists the returned fields (name, type, size, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_create_file, drive_get_content, drive_list_files, and drive_search.

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 usage context: use this tool when you need metadata for a specific file by ID. While it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or mention alternatives, the purpose is straightforward and unambiguous.

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

All Google_drive toolsInspect
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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer queries, and the multiple polymarket_* tools scan for edges and arbitrage. The Drive tools are distinct, but the surrounding 31 unrelated tools create significant ambiguity about which tool to call for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are all snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some start with verbs (drive_create_file, ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and some are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall). There is no uniform verb_noun convention, and suffixes like _beta and _grounded add further irregularity.

Tool Count1/5

36 tools is far too many for a server named Google_drive, especially since only 5 tools (drive_create_file, drive_get_content, drive_get_file, drive_list_files, drive_search) actually relate to Drive. The other 31 tools cover unrelated domains like Pipeworx data queries, Polymarket betting, and memory management, making the tool count wildly disproportionate to the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a Google Drive server, the tool set is incomplete: it covers create, get content, get metadata, list, and search, but lacks essential operations like updating, deleting, uploading, moving, copying files, creating folders, or managing permissions/sharing. These gaps would force agents to work around missing core Drive functionality.

Resources