delete_drive_fileDelete a Drive file. By default it goes to Trash (recoverable); pass permanent:true to delete it forever. Pass fileId (from list_drive_files) + confirm:true. Irreversible when permanent — confirm with the user first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileId | Yes | the Drive file id | |
| confirm | No | REQUIRED true | |
| permanent | No | true = delete forever; default trashes (recoverable) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint:true and idempotentHint:true, but the description adds critical behavioral context: default sends to Trash (recoverable), permanent:true deletes forever, and irreversibility warning. It also specifies the confirmation requirement, enriching the safety picture beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two sentences with no filler. The primary action and default behavior are front-loaded, followed by required parameters and a caution. Every word contributes value; the structure is efficient and scannable.
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 destructive operation with no output schema, the description covers all essential aspects: behavior (trash vs permanent), required confirm flag, source of fileId, and user-confirmation guidance. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to execute correctly.
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?
Schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: fileId comes from list_drive_files, confirm must be true, and permanent overrides the default trash behavior. This goes beyond the raw schema definitions, though it partly echoes schema text.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Delete a Drive file.' It distinguishes from siblings like update_drive_file, get_drive_file, and save_to_drive by specifying the action and the source of the identifier (list_drive_files). The purpose is unambiguous and differentiated.
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?
It provides clear operational guidance: how to obtain fileId (from list_drive_files) and the requirement of confirm:true. It also advises caution for permanent deletion and instructs to confirm with the user. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool (e.g., for OneDrive or other storage), though the Drive-specific scope is implicit.
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.
With 293 tools, the surface is enormous and many tools have overlapping purposes—multiple posting tools (post_to_meta, post_to_linkedin, schedule_post, etc.), multiple analytics tools per channel, and several search tools (search_meta_ads, search_instagram, search_reddit...). While each description is detailed, the volume makes it difficult for an agent to reliably distinguish between similar tools without careful reading, leading to frequent misselection.
The naming is largely consistent with a verb_noun pattern (post_to_*, list_*, create_*, delete_*, update_*, manage_*). There are clear families for major operations. A few outliers like 'google_business_account', 'hermoso_capabilities', and 'store_get' break the pattern, but the overwhelming majority follow a predictable structure, making navigation somewhat easier.
293 tools is far beyond any reasonable scope for a single MCP server, even for a comprehensive marketing platform. The calibration guide flags 50+ as an extreme mismatch, and this is nearly six times that threshold. Such a large surface overwhelms context windows, increases the probability of misselection, and makes it impractical for agents to learn or use effectively.
The tool set covers a vast domain: ad creation and rendering, posting across nine+ social channels, analytics and reporting, file management (Drive/OneDrive), competitor research, brand management, and more. It appears to provide CRUD and lifecycle coverage for most resources. While there may be minor gaps given the immense scope, the overall coverage is impressively comprehensive.