Skip to main content
Glama

Google_drive

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Scan Dependency

scan_dependency
Read-onlyIdempotent

Composite "should I add this npm package to my project" check in ONE call — fans out across deps.dev (license + advisories + version history) and bundlephobia (gzipped/minified bundle size, dependency count, ESM/tree-shake support). Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me". Returns a summary block (is_latest, license, published_at, advisory_count, bundle_kb_min, bundle_kb_gz, dependency_count, has_esm, tree_shakeable), per-advisory detail, links, and a list of recent alternative versions. NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly. Partial failures degrade gracefully — bundlephobia's first measurement on a new version can take 5-30s; sources_failed will list it if it times out, the rest still returns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageYesnpm package name. Scoped packages (e.g. "@types/node") are accepted.
versionNoSpecific version to check (e.g., "18.3.1"). Defaults to the latest published version when omitted.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare it as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds significant behavioral context: graceful degradation, potential 5-30s latency on bundlephobia first measurement, and the 'sources_failed' field. This goes beyond annotations and discloses important runtime characteristics.

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 a single dense paragraph that leads with the core purpose, then usage, then return structure, then limitations. Every sentence adds value, though it could be trimmed slightly. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 the complexity of the tool (composite call, multiple sources, potential partial failures), the description covers the return block fields, behavior on partial failures, ecosystem scope, and latency. No output schema exists, so the description adequately fills the gap for an agent to understand what to expect.

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

Parameters3/5

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 slightly reinforces the default behavior for 'version' but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. No additional parameter nuances are explained.

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 composite nature, specific resources (npm package, deps.dev, bundlephobia), and the verb 'scan' combined with the 'should I add' check. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly noting it's a one-call composite and mentions the fallback for other ecosystems.

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 says 'Use whenever an agent asks ...' giving clear context. Also specifies that PyPI/Maven/Cargo/Go fall under a different tool (deps.dev:version directly), providing a clear alternative. This guides appropriate usage and exclusion.

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