Skip to main content
Glama

local-mcp

by com.local-mcp

Gdrive Write File

gdrive_write_file

Writes or overwrites a text file in the synced Google Drive folder — it uploads automatically via the official client. First call returns a preview; pass confirm=true to write.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path under a Google Drive mount
confirmNoMust be true to actually write
contentYesText content to write

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes
bytesYes
writtenYes
overwroteYes

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description says 'overwrites a text file', which is a destructive action, but annotations mark destructiveHint=false. This is a direct contradiction. The preview/confirmation workflow is helpful, but the contradiction with the annotation undermines trust and requires flagging.

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 two well-structured sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the confirmation requirement. No filler or redundant content is present.

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?

The description sufficiently covers the core usage: writing/overwriting a file, auto-upload, and the confirmation flow. It does not detail edge cases like missing paths or permissions, but given the output schema exists and the description is focused, it is mostly complete.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The description adds critical meaning to the confirm parameter by explaining the two-step preview-then-confirm workflow. While schema covers all three parameters at 100%, the description goes beyond by clarifying the sequence and purpose of confirm=true, which is not evident from the schema alone.

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 uses a specific verb ('Writes or overwrites') and names the resource ('text file in the synced Google Drive folder'), clearly distinguishing it from read/list/search siblings like gdrive_read_file and gdrive_list_files. The mention of the official client and auto-upload further clarifies the tool's role.

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 clearly explains how to use the tool: first call returns a preview, then pass confirm=true to write. It provides clear context for writing to Google Drive, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All local-mcp toolsInspect
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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools are clearly distinct per app (e.g., chrome_*, safari_*, m365_*), but there is notable overlap between generic file tools like `file_list` and `finder_list`, both listing files; `search_contacts` and `list_contacts` serve similar purposes; `report_friction` and `report_problem` both send feedback to the team. The large number of tools with similar purposes in different domains creates moderate ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming convention is very consistent overall: most tools follow a `{app}_action` or `verb_noun` pattern (e.g., `chrome_click`, `create_calendar_event`, `list_reminders`). There are minor deviations like `lmcp_install_upgrade` (two verbs) and `complete_omnifocus_task` vs. `complete_reminder` (inconsistent verb placement). Still, the pattern is predictable and readable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

With 225 tools, the surface is extremely large and heavy. While it covers many distinct domains (browsers, mail, calendar, files, notes, reminders, video editing, web automation, etc.), the sheer number makes it hard to navigate and likely includes many rarely-used tools. This is far beyond the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools and feels excessive even for a 'local everything' MCP server.

Completeness3/5

For many app integrations, the tool set provides solid CRUD coverage (e.g., Calendar has create, read, update, delete; Apple Notes has create, read, update, list, search; OmniFocus has create, list, search, complete). However, some areas are incomplete: for example, there is no tool to create a new Mail folder or delete notes. The 'web' tools lack a clear update/delete for saved sessions. The suite is broad but has notable gaps within individual domains.

Resources