Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

DataToRAG

by com.datatorag
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

gws-mcp__drive_share_file

Destructive

Shares a Google Drive file or folder with one person by email address, as reader, commenter or writer. Takes the file ID, the address and the role, and optionally a message for the notification email. Google emails the person unless notify is false. Returns the file ID and its permission list afterwards: who has access, at what role. Sharing a file with someone already on it at another role adds no second entry; Drive keeps one per person. This gives the person access to the file and, for a folder, to what is inside it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_id": "<file_id>",
      "email": "<email>",
      "role": "<role>"
    },
    "name": "gws-mcp__drive_share_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
roleYesThe access to give: reader (view), commenter (view and comment) or writer (edit).
emailYesThe email address of the person to share with.
notifyNoWhether Google emails the person about the share (default: true).
accountNoOptional email address of the connected account to use (e.g. 'user@gmail.com'). If omitted, the default account is used.
file_idYesThe Google Drive file or folder ID to share.
messageNoAn optional message, sent in the notification email.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already flag a non-read-only, potentially destructive mutation; the description adds real context on top: notification email behavior unless notify is false, one permission entry per person on repeat sharing, and inheritance for folders. It does not warn that re-sharing at a lower role replaces (downgrades) existing access, nor what permission level the caller needs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the action, recipient scope and roles, then behavior and return value. Slightly repetitive in re-listing the roles already enumerated in the schema, but no filler sentences.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers inputs, side effects (email notification), semantics of role changes and what is returned, which compensates for the absent output schema. Missing caller-permission requirements and shared-drive caveats keep it just short of full completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents file_id, email, role enum, notify, message and account. The description only restates the role and message/notify in prose without adding format or edge-case meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Shares a Google Drive file or folder'), the scope ('with one person by email address'), and the allowed roles. An agent can distinguish it from the read-only sibling drive_get_file_permissions without opening either schema.

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 'one person by email address' framing implicitly tells the agent this is a per-recipient operation, so multiple people require multiple calls. It gives clear context for when to use it, but never names alternatives or exclusions (e.g. when to inspect permissions first with drive_get_file_permissions).

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

All DataToRAG toolsInspect
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