Skip to main content
Glama

TeamShared

by io.github.xhad

Drive List

drive_list

Deprecated alias for storage_list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNoOptional case-insensitive title substring
work_idNoOnly Storage objects attached to this work item UUID
folder_idNoAlias of parent_id
parent_idNoFolder UUID to list, or 'root' / empty for the org root. Omit to list everything.
project_idNoOnly Storage objects attached to this project UUID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / folder_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Alias of parent_id"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / parent_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Folder UUID to list, or 'root' / empty for the org root. Omit to list everything."
+}
  2. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Only Storage objects attached to this project UUID"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / work_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Only Storage objects attached to this work item UUID"
+}
  3. Added

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses an important behavioral trait: the tool is deprecated and behaves as an alias for storage_list. However, it does not describe any actual listing behavior, output characteristics, filters, or side effects; the pointer to storage_list partially compensates but does not fully disclose behavior.

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 sentence with no filler: it states the deprecation status and the canonical replacement. Every word earns its place, and the critical routing information is immediately visible.

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 deprecated alias tool with a detailed input schema and an output schema, the description is largely sufficient because it tells the agent to use storage_list instead. It does not restate storage_list's full behavior, but as an alias this is acceptable; the main gap is that if storage_list's description is unavailable, the agent must infer the actual listing semantics.

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 high (83%), and the schema provides descriptions for most parameters including query, work_id, folder_id, parent_id, and project_id. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it earns the baseline score for relying on a well-covered schema.

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 states that drive_list is a deprecated alias for storage_list, which clearly identifies the underlying operation by reference to the canonical tool. It stops short of explicitly stating 'lists storage objects,' relying on the sibling tool name, but it is not vague or tautological.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The deprecation notice explicitly signals that this tool should not be used in favor of storage_list, which is named as the replacement. This gives an agent clear routing guidance and an explicit alternative.

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

All TeamShared 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
Disambiguation4/5

With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.

Resources