get_onedrive_fileFetch one OneDrive item’s metadata — name, type, size, modified time, a webViewLink to open it and a webContentLink to download it. Pass fileId (from list_onedrive_files). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileId | Yes | the OneDrive item id (from list_onedrive_files) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, and the description's 'Read-only' aligns with these. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by specifying the exact metadata fields returned (name, type, size, modified time, webViewLink, webContentLink), which the annotations do not convey. No contradiction with annotations.
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 redundancy. The action and key output fields are stated first, followed by the parameter source. Efficient and well-structured, making it quick for an agent to parse and understand the tool's purpose and usage.
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 single-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety, the description fully specifies the action, the exact return fields, and the parameter source. No missing information is needed to call the tool correctly. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the description listing all metadata fields returned, making it complete.
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 schema already fully describes the single parameter: fileId is 'the OneDrive item id (from list_onedrive_files)'. The description repeats this verbatim without adding format, constraints, or examples. With schema coverage at 100%, the description provides no additional semantic value, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Fetch') and resource ('one OneDrive item's metadata') and enumerates the exact fields returned (name, type, size, modified time, webViewLink, webContentLink). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like get_drive_file (Google Drive) and list_onedrive_files (listing multiple items) by specifying the single-item scope and the OneDrive service.
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 instructs to 'Pass fileId (from list_onedrive_files)', establishing the prerequisite workflow (list first, then fetch details). It does not explicitly name alternative tools for update/delete or other storage services, but the read-only note and metadata-fetch scope implicitly guide usage. This provides clear context without explicit exclusions.
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.