Skip to main content
Glama

Google_drive

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Recent Alerts

recent_alerts
Read-onlyIdempotent

Pull fired events from your subscription feed. Returns the most recent alerts the evaluator has written to your persisted feed — each carries source, citation_uri (pipeworx:// when available), and the raw event payload. Filter by type (e.g. "sec_8k") and/or since (ISO timestamp). Set mark_read:true to flag returned events read so the next call only shows newer ones. Polls work fine; the same feed is also at GET registry.pipeworx.io/alerts.json for scripts and dashboards.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNoOptional — filter to one subscription type.
limitNoMax events to return (1-200, default 50).
sinceNoOptional ISO timestamp — return events fired_at >= this time.
mark_readNoFlag the returned events read in the same call (default false).
unread_onlyNoReturn only events where read_at is null (default false).

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) indicate safe, non-destructive behavior. The description adds that mark_read:true updates read state, clarifying a mild mutation is possible. No contradiction with annotations; the description enriches behavioral context.

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?

The description is very concise: three sentences that front-load the purpose, then add key details and alternative access. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description sufficiently explains the return format (source, citation_uri, raw event payload). It covers filtering, polling, and alternative access. The tool's complexity is low, and the description is complete for effective use.

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 value by explaining mark_read functionality and the format for 'since' (ISO timestamp). However, it does not cover 'limit' or 'unread_only' beyond the schema, but that is acceptable since schema already describes them.

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's action: 'Pull fired events from your subscription feed.' It specifies the resource (subscription feed), the verb (Pull), and details about the return data (source, citation_uri, raw payload). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the alternative endpoint for scripts/dashboards.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides usage context: 'Polls work fine' and an alternative access method (GET endpoint). It also explains the 'mark_read' parameter for flagging events read. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_subscriptions'.

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