drive_unpublishDeprecated alias for storage_unpublish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | Storage object UUID to unpublish |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / file_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Drive object UUID to unpublish"New value: +"Storage object UUID to unpublish"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals only that the tool is deprecated and an alias, but says nothing about side effects, permissions, idempotency, or what unpublishing entails. For a mutation-oriented tool, this is a significant omission, even if the alias relationship implies identical behavior to storage_unpublish.
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?
The description is a single sentence, word-efficient, and front-loaded with the most critical fact (deprecated alias). No unnecessary elaboration exists, making it ideal for a wrapper tool.
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?
Given the tool is a deprecated alias with a simple one-parameter schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential context: its status and the canonical target. It could be more explicit about the actual action, but the alias relationship plus sibling listing of storage_unpublish makes the intent reasonably complete for an agent.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with file_id documented as 'Storage object UUID to unpublish', so the schema already handles parameter semantics. The description adds no parameter-level information, which aligns with the baseline score of 3 when the schema fully covers parameters.
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 explicitly identifies the tool as a deprecated alias for storage_unpublish, which conveys that its function matches the canonical unpublish operation. This distinguishes it from siblings like drive_publish and drive_list, but it does not directly state what unpublishing does, relying on knowledge of the aliased tool.
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?
The description explicitly marks the tool as deprecated and names storage_unpublish as the canonical replacement. This tells an agent to use the alternative and avoid this tool, giving clear when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance in a single phrase.
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.