-
licenseNot graded
qualityA
maintenanceThis MCP server integrates with Google Drive to allow listing, reading, and searching over files.
6,700
90,042
MIT
Google Drive MCP Server
by pedrohzwang
Provides tools for interacting with Google Drive, allowing for listing files and retrieving detailed metadata for specific files by their ID.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type
@followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Google Drive MCP Serverlist the files in my Google Drive"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
Google Drive MCP Server
This is a simple MCP server that integrates with Google Drive.
Prerequisites
Node.js: Version 18 or higher is recommended (the current environment is using 16, so you might need to upgrade for full compatibility).
Google Cloud Project:
Go to the Google Cloud Console.
Create a project.
Enable the Google Drive API.
Create a Service Account and download the JSON key file.
Authentication:
Set the environment variable
GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALSto the path of your JSON key file.Alternatively, share the folder/files you want to access with the service account's email address.
Related MCP server: Google Drive MCP Server
Configuration for Claude Desktop
Add the following to your Claude Desktop configuration file:
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"google-drive": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"c:/git/projects/drive-mcp-connect/build/index.js"
],
"env": {
"GOOGLE_APPLICATION_CREDENTIALS": "C:/path/to/your/service-account-key.json"
}
}
}
}Tools Provided
list_files: List files in your Google Drive.get_file_info: Get metadata for a specific file by its ID.
Available Tools
2 toolsget_file_infoB
Get detailed information about a specific file by ID
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileId | Yes | The ID of the file |
TDQS
B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like permissions required, rate limits, response format, or whether it's idempotent. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.
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, direct sentence with zero waste—it states the action, resource, and key input concisely. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, error scenarios, or behavioral traits like idempotency. For a tool with no structured support, the description should provide more context to guide the agent effectively, but it falls short.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'fileId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying it's used to fetch details, which the schema already covers. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 clearly states the action ('Get detailed information') and resource ('about a specific file by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'list_files' by focusing on single-file details rather than listing multiple files. However, it doesn't specify what 'detailed information' includes, keeping it from a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when you need file details for a known file ID, contrasting with 'list_files' for browsing. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites like authentication, or error handling for invalid IDs. The context is clear but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
list_filesC
List files from Google Drive
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | Number of files to return (max 100) | |
| q | No | Google Drive search query (e.g., "name contains 'Meeting'") |
TDQS
C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List files' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what happens with large result sets (pagination behavior), rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description is too minimal for a tool that likely returns structured data.
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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and uses straightforward terminology. Every word earns its place in conveying the essential purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what kind of file information is returned, how results are structured, whether authentication is required, or how to handle pagination. The agent would struggle to use this tool effectively without additional context.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing good documentation for both parameters. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding of parameter usage or relationships.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('files from Google Drive'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'get_file_info', which appears to retrieve details about a specific file rather than listing multiple files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling 'get_file_info'. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations that would help an agent decide between listing files and getting individual file information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Tool Schema Changelog
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
2 tool updates
v1.0.0- First observed
get_file_info - First observed
list_files
TDQS
B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_file_info retrieves detailed metadata for a specific file by ID, while list_files enumerates files from Google Drive. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to choose the correct tool based on whether it needs information about a single file or a list of files.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun naming pattern (get_file_info and list_files), using snake_case and clear, descriptive verbs. This consistency makes the tool set predictable and easy to understand at a glance.
Tool Count2/5
With only two tools, this server feels severely under-scoped for a Google Drive integration. Basic operations like uploading, updating, deleting, or searching files are missing, which limits the server's utility and suggests an incomplete implementation for the domain.
Completeness1/5
The tool set is severely incomplete for a Google Drive server. It lacks essential CRUD operations (e.g., upload_file, update_file, delete_file), search capabilities, folder management, and sharing functions. Agents will face dead ends when trying to perform common Drive tasks beyond listing and getting file info.
Maintenance
ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing
Resources
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
Looking for Admin?
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Related MCP Connectors
The Google Compute Engine MCP server is a fully-managed Model Context Protocol server that provides tools to manage Google Compute Engine resources through AI agents. It enables capabilities including instance management (creating, starting, stopping, resetting, listing), disk management, handling instance templates and group managers, viewing machine and accelerator types, managing images, and accessing reservation and commitment information. The server operates as a zero-deployment, enterprise-grade endpoint at https://compute.googleapis.com/mcp with built-in IAM-based security.
An MCP server that provides read access to your cloud storage providers, bank accounts and more.
The Google GKE MCP server is a managed Model Context Protocol server that provides AI applications with tools to manage Google Kubernetes Engine (GKE) clusters and Kubernetes resources. It exposes a structured, discoverable interface that allows AI agents to interact with GKE and Kubernetes APIs, enabling them to inspect cluster configurations, retrieve Kubernetes resource YAMLs, monitor operations like cluster upgrades, diagnose issues, and optimize costs—all without needing to parse text output or use complex kubectl commands.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
Related MCP Servers
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA server that provides a Machine Control Protocol (MCP) interface to search, access, and interact with Google Drive files and folders, enabling AI assistants to work with Google Drive content.8MIT
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables interaction with Google Drive through the Google Cloud API. It allows users to list, read, and upload files directly from MCP-compatible clients like manus.im or Cursor.-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables AI assistants to list, read, create, and manage files in Google Drive. It features automatic conversion of Google Workspace formats into Markdown, CSV, and plain text for seamless integration with AI workflows.35MIT
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/pedrohzwang/drive-mcp-connect'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server