Skip to main content
Glama

drive_search_files

Search documents, presentations, and files in Google Drive (read-only).

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "drive_search_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch terms or MIME filters (e.g., "xAI compute", "type:presentation").
max_resultsNoMaximum files to return (1-20, default 5).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is read-only, but says nothing about result ranking, whether results are truncated, whether file metadata (IDs, links, owners) is returned, or whether auth scopes limit what is searchable.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though so terse that it leaves behavioral questions unanswered rather than spending words on them.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (two params, no nested objects), and the schema covers both parameters fully. However, with no output schema and no annotations, an agent still cannot predict the shape of the returned results — critical since output file IDs are likely needed by sibling tools like drive_create_presentation.

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 both the query string and max_results bounds are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a light hint that 'presentations' maps to the MIME filter syntax shown in the schema, which is already implied there.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: searching documents, presentations, and files in Google Drive. It's clear what the tool does, but it doesn't distinguish itself from other search siblings (e.g., notion_search_pages, github_search_issues) beyond naming its Drive scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the resource scope — an agent can infer it should be used when looking for Drive content. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of alternatives such as the create_presentation sibling it may feed into.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.