drive_publishDeprecated alias for storage_publish.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes | Storage object UUID to publish |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Input schema / properties / file_id / descriptionPrevious value: -"Drive object UUID to publish"New value: +"Storage object UUID to publish"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only discloses deprecation status and alias relationship, and does not describe side effects, permissions, reversibility, or publish/unpublish semantics. The behavior is only implicitly delegated to storage_publish.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence with no filler, front-loading the deprecation status and then naming the replacement. This is appropriately sized for a deprecated alias tool whose only real purpose is to route callers to storage_publish.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with one required parameter, a fully described schema, and an output schema available. The deprecation guidance plus the named replacement covers the key decision an agent needs to make. It loses one point because the actual publish behavior is only implicit via 'alias' and the sibling name, with no annotations to compensate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% for file_id, e.g. 'Storage object UUID to publish', so the baseline is met. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond identifying the tool as an alias, but the schema already documents the single parameter adequately.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says the tool is a deprecated alias for storage_publish, which points to the relevant sibling but does not itself state the tool's operating behavior (publishing a storage object). It relies on the sibling name and the file_id schema hint to convey the function, and there is no explicit verb describing what drive_publish does.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides when-not-to-use guidance via the word 'Deprecated' and names the replacement alternative, storage_publish. An agent can clearly infer that storage_publish should be used instead of drive_publish.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
With 104 tools across many domains (memory, work, projects, files, agents, context, strategic, ontology), the use of clear prefixes (memory_, work_, project_, file_, agent_run_, context_) makes most tools distinct. However, there are some potential confusions between memory_session_* vs memory_state_*, and memory_recall vs memory_think vs memory_assemble_context, though descriptions clarify their specific purposes. Aliases like memory_playbook_get for memory_procedure_get are explicit and reduce ambiguity.
Tool names follow a highly consistent pattern: prefix_domain_action (e.g., file_create, work_update, memory_recall, agent_run_start). All use snake_case, with verbs consistently placed after the domain prefix. Even less common tools like account_brief and attention_snapshot fit the overall naming scheme, making the set predictable and easy to navigate.
At 104 tools, this is an exceptionally large surface area, far exceeding the 25+ threshold that feels heavy. However, the server covers an extensive domain (organizational memory, work management, project tracking, file sharing, agent orchestration, and strategic planning), which justifies a large count. Still, the sheer number may overwhelm agents, and some tools could be consolidated (e.g., many memory_session_* and memory_state_* variants).
The tool surface is remarkably complete for its stated purpose, covering CRUD operations for files, work items, projects, and memory, plus lifecycle management for agents, sessions, and strategic plans. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct memory_item_get by ID, no section removal in projects), but agents can work around these using existing tools like memory_recall or work_create with parent_id. Overall, the set minimizes dead ends.