Skip to main content
Glama

Google_drive

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden and it delivers: it discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), quota behavior, and the claim_token follow-up mechanism. It stops short of describing error/failure modes or the exact shape of the response, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

The description is longer than typical but every section earns its place: purpose, use cases, exclusion, claim_token mechanics, and rate limit. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, so the essential info appears immediately; the length is justified by the nuanced routing rules.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately covers the return behavior via claim_token and describes the practical constraints (rate limiting, daily digests). It does not specify failure response formats, but for a feedback submission tool the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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 baseline is 3; the description adds useful semantics by telling agents to 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt' and by demonstrating claim_token usage with `pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})`. This is meaningful guidance on top of 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?

Opens with 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist', giving a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools, which are about querying rather than reporting issues.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap)...'. It also gives a firm exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client... file it with that server instead', so the agent knows not to misroute.

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