Status of the organization's Google Drive connection, used to send creators' submitted videos straight into Drive folders instead of the app's storage. Connecting (Google consent screen) can only be done by a manager from the app (Production → folder menu → 'Link a Drive folder'); once connected, this MCP can list/create Drive folders and link them to production folders or assignments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates no mutation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context: connecting requires a Google consent screen, is manager-only, and is done via the app rather than this tool. It also clarifies what the MCP becomes capable of once connected. It does not describe the exact status response format, but that is a minor gap for a parameterless read-only check.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence adds valuable operational detail about how the connection is established and what capabilities become available, so the length is justified. It is concise while still providing necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple parameterless status tool with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description covers the main purpose, the connection setup flow, and downstream capabilities. The only notable omission is the concrete return values (e.g., connected vs. not connected), but the word 'Status' and the surrounding context make the tool's behavior sufficiently clear.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter documentation is needed.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as returning the status of the organization's Google Drive connection and explains why that connection exists (storing creators' submitted videos in Drive). This distinguishes it from drive-manipulation siblings like create_drive_folder, list_drive_folders, and set_drive_folder.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides explicit context: the connection can only be established by a manager through the app UI, not through this MCP. It also states that once connected, the MCP can list/create Drive folders, implying this status check should precede such operations. This gives practical usage guidance beyond a simple tool label.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct target resource/action, and the descriptions are unusually explicit about differences (e.g., 'Distinct from the watchlist', 'Separate list from list_tags'). A few pairs are still easy to confuse without careful reading: delete_folder vs delete_folders differ only by singular/plural, and the three download-URL tools (get_post_download_url, get_asset_download_url, get_my_account_post_download_url) plus the category/tag families require attention to pick correctly.
The snake_case verb_noun pattern is followed consistently throughout (list_*, get_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, set_*, tag_*). Minor deviations: archive_folder and archive_my_accounts also perform restore despite their names, delete_folder/delete_folders split one operation by cardinality, and tag_posts/tag_my_account use a different verb style than the set_* family for metadata mutations.
At 56 tools, this far exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' even though the server spans multiple subdomains (watchlist, analysis, assignments, folders, my accounts, assets, Drive, categories/tags). Obvious consolidation candidates exist — delete_folder/delete_folders, the three download-URL getters, and the parallel list_my_account_* listers — and the sheer surface is heavy for an agent to navigate.
Core workflows are thoroughly covered with no dead ends: watchlist → analyze → assign → folder → track → approve has full lifecycle support, including reversible archive vs permanent delete choices. Minor gaps exist but are work-aroundable: no create/update for my accounts or models (app-side OAuth/admin only), no way to delete a viral post or a post note, and asset upload only happens in the app.
