ShareWatch

List Files

list_files

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the Google Workspace files ShareWatch can see. This is not the user's Drive — it is only what was created through ShareWatch plus what the user has explicitly shared with it, so a short list means a narrow grant and an empty one does not mean an empty Drive. Never tell the user a file does not exist on this basis; a file you cannot see here may still be there. Google grants access per file, so sharing a folder does not share what is inside it: files in a shared folder appear only if they were shared themselves. If the user expected a folder's contents, ask them to open the folder in the picker and select the files (several at once is fine). Returns file IDs, names, types, URLs, and each file's parent folder — folders appear as entries too, so parent_folder_id is what tells you which files live inside which folder.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`files`	Yes
`guidance`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 11, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / files / items / properties / account

Added value: +{
+  "description": "the account this file lives in, when the user has connected more than one — pass it back as account on create tools to put new files there",
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedOutput schema / properties / files / items / properties / provider

Added value: +{
+  "description": "the provider of that account: google",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 10, 2026
- removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / files / items / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already convey readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive traits. The description adds crucial behavioral context beyond annotations: the access model, per-file sharing semantics, folder behavior, and the fact that an empty list does not mean an empty Drive. This is exactly the kind of nuance an agent needs.

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 longer than a typical one-liner, but every sentence earns its place by preventing a specific misinterpretation or unsafe user-facing claim. The core scope is front-loaded, and the caveats are progressively layered without redundancy.

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?

The description covers scope, interpretation, folder-sharing behavior, and practical user guidance, and an output schema exists to document return structure. There are no obvious gaps that would prevent an agent from using this tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so parameter-level documentation is unnecessary. The description still adds value by explicitly listing the returned fields (file IDs, names, types, URLs, parent folder IDs), maintaining the baseline of 4 for parameter-free tools.

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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'List the Google Workspace files ShareWatch can see.' It immediately distinguishes this from the user's Drive, which clearly separates it from siblings like search_files and avoids ambiguity about the tool's narrow scope.

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 strong interpretive guidance: never claim a file doesn't exist based on this list, and direct users to open the folder in the picker if folder contents are missing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools like search_files or when-not scenarios, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

All ShareWatch tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?