Skip to main content
Glama

Google_drive

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Drive Get Content

drive_get_content
Read-onlyIdempotent

Download file content from Drive. Export Google Docs/Sheets/Slides to PDF, Word, Excel, etc., or retrieve raw content from other files.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_idYesThe ID of the file to download
export_mime_typeNoMIME type to export Google Workspace files to (e.g., "text/plain", "application/pdf", "text/csv"). Required for Google Docs/Sheets/Slides.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
errorNoError code if connection failed
contentNoFile content as text
file_idNoThe file ID retrieved
messageNoError message with instructions
export_mime_typeNoMIME type file was exported to

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds behavioral context about export capabilities and raw content retrieval, which is consistent. However, it does not disclose potential limits (e.g., file size, rate limits) or behavior for unsupported MIME types. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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, no redundant words. The first sentence captures the primary action; the second clarifies the two modes (export vs raw). Information density is high without being verbose.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema and 100% schema coverage, the description adequately covers the core functionality. It explains the two use cases (export and raw retrieval) and mentions common export targets. It could mention error handling or prerequisites (e.g., proper permissions), but the annotation hints and schema reduce that need. Overall, sufficient for an informed agent.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by explaining export_mime_type's role in converting Google Workspace files and listing common formats (PDF, Word, Excel). This goes beyond the schema's generic MIME type description, helping the agent understand when and how to use export_mime_type.

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 tool downloads file content from Drive, distinguishes between exporting Google Workspace files (to PDF, Word, Excel, etc.) and retrieving raw content from other files. The verb 'Download' and resource 'Drive' are specific, and the distinction from sibling tools like drive_get_file (which likely returns metadata) is implicit.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions export for Google Docs/Sheets/Slides but provides no guidance on when not to use it (e.g., for metadata-only needs, use drive_get_file). No direct comparison to sibling tools like drive_get_file or drive_list_files.

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

All Google_drive 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer queries, and the multiple polymarket_* tools scan for edges and arbitrage. The Drive tools are distinct, but the surrounding 31 unrelated tools create significant ambiguity about which tool to call for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are all snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some start with verbs (drive_create_file, ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and some are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall). There is no uniform verb_noun convention, and suffixes like _beta and _grounded add further irregularity.

Tool Count1/5

36 tools is far too many for a server named Google_drive, especially since only 5 tools (drive_create_file, drive_get_content, drive_get_file, drive_list_files, drive_search) actually relate to Drive. The other 31 tools cover unrelated domains like Pipeworx data queries, Polymarket betting, and memory management, making the tool count wildly disproportionate to the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a Google Drive server, the tool set is incomplete: it covers create, get content, get metadata, list, and search, but lacks essential operations like updating, deleting, uploading, moving, copying files, creating folders, or managing permissions/sharing. These gaps would force agents to work around missing core Drive functionality.

Resources