drive_unlinkDeprecated alias for storage_unlink.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent | No | Override agent identity | |
| file_id | Yes | Storage object UUID to unlink | |
| work_id | No | Work item UUID to unlink from | |
| project_id | No | Project UUID to unlink from |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description does not disclose what 'unlink' does, whether it mutates state, requires permissions, or returns anything. The alias reference points the agent to storage_unlink, but the description alone carries little actual behavioral information.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence, fully front-loaded, with no wasted words. The deprecation and alias relationship are the only necessary content, and the description delivers them immediately.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description gives the key routing context an agent needs: this tool exists only as a deprecated alias and should be replaced by storage_unlink, which is a sibling. It does not describe behavior or return value, but those are effectively delegated to storage_unlink, making this sufficient for a deprecation stub.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All four input parameters already have descriptive entries in the schema, including 'Storage object UUID to unlink' and 'Work item UUID to unlink from'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the high schema coverage establishes the baseline score.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description does not spell out the unlink operation itself, but it gives a precise definition by equivalence: this tool is a deprecated alias for storage_unlink. That clearly identifies a canonical sibling and distinguishes this tool from the rest of the drive_* family.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Deprecated alias for storage_unlink' is an explicit usage signal: avoid this tool and use storage_unlink instead. It names the exact alternative and communicates the deprecation without ambiguity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
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.
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).
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.