ShareWatch

Request File Access

request_file_access

Read-onlyIdempotent

When a user wants you to access a file that isn't in the file list, call this tool. It returns a URL the user can open to select and grant access to files from their Google Drive.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`reason`	No	Brief description of why file access is needed, shown to the user

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes	the page where the user picks files to share — give them this link
`reason`	No	the reason supplied by the caller, echoed so it can be shown alongside the request
`message`	Yes	wording to relay to the user

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so there is no safety contradiction. The description adds the crucial behavioral fact that the tool returns a user-facing authorization URL rather than direct file contents, which is essential for setting agent and user expectations.

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?

Two sentences contain no filler, the trigger condition is front-loaded, and the return behavior follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a one-parameter, non-destructive tool with an output schema and full annotations, the description covers trigger, behavior, and user-visible outcome. No critical call-time information is missing.

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 single parameter 'reason' is fully documented in the schema with 100% coverage, so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It adds no semantics beyond the schema, which meets the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 trigger ('when a user wants you to access a file that isn't in the file list') and a concrete outcome ('returns a URL the user can open to select and grant access'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_file or access_file_by_url, which operate on already-available files.

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?

It provides an explicit when-to-use condition: only when a wanted file is absent from the file list. It does not explicitly name alternate tools for files that are already listed, but the exclusion is clear enough for an agent to route correctly.

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

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

A3.9/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct resource and action, and the detailed descriptions separate similar-sounding ones. A few pairs could still be confused: access_file_by_url vs request_file_access, and create_document vs format_document, but their trigger conditions are described clearly enough to avoid frequent misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set mostly follows a verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case, e.g. create_document, update_spreadsheet, delete_file. Minor deviations like build_presentation instead of create_presentation, and format_document alongside create_document, break the pattern slightly but remain readable and predictable.

Tool Count3/5

25 tools is at the heavy end of the scale, though the domain spans Drive, Docs, Sheets, and Slides, which justifies a large surface. Some consolidation is possible — access_file_by_url and request_file_access overlap, as do create_document and format_document — so the count feels slightly bloated rather than tightly scoped.

Completeness4/5

The server covers the core file lifecycle well: create, read, update, delete, move, list, search, upload, and access control across all major Google Workspace document types. Minor gaps exist, such as no rename, copy, export, or direct sharing tool, but agents can work around these without major failures.

Resources

Need Help?