Skip to main content
Glama

Hermoso

by io.github.hermoso-ai

Rename / move / trash a Drive file

update_drive_file
Idempotent

Update a Drive file: rename (name), move it into a folder (moveToFolderId, optionally removeFromFolderId to move OUT of the old one), or trash / untrash it (trash:true|false). Pass fileId (from list_drive_files). To delete permanently, use delete_drive_file.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNonew name
trashNotrue → move to Trash; false → restore from Trash
fileIdYesthe Drive file id
moveToFolderIdNofolder id to move the file into (from create_drive_folder / list_drive_files)
removeFromFolderIdNothe old parent folder id to remove (when moving)

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds concrete behavior details by explaining the three modifications and their effects (e.g., move into/out of folders, trash/restore). It clarifies that permanent deletion is out of scope, but doesn't mention any side effects like permission requirements or return values, which are minor given the annotations already cover the safety profile.

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?

Two sentences efficiently enumerate all operations and parameters, with the fileId source and deletion alternative front-loaded. No filler or redundant phrasing; every word contributes value.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and clear annotations, the description covers the core usage completely. It lacks explicit mention of success/error returns or permission requirements, but these are common expectations for such tools and not critical. The description is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter already has a description. The description goes further by mapping parameters to actions (name→rename, moveToFolderId→move into, removeFromFolderId→move out, trash→trash/restore) and identifying fileId's source. This adds meaningful operational context beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the three distinct operations (rename, move, trash/untrash) with their corresponding parameters, and explicitly contrasts with delete_drive_file for permanent deletion. This gives a specific verb+resource with unambiguous sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It tells the agent to pass fileId from list_drive_files and explicitly directs permanent deletion to delete_drive_file, providing a clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use. The intended context for each parameter is also explained, leaving little to inference.

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

All Hermoso 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

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.

Naming Consistency4/5

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.

Tool Count1/5

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.

Completeness4/5

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.

Resources