drive_list_filesList files in a Drive (driveId = drv_…, or "default"). Optional prefix filter.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| prefix | No | only list files under this path prefix | |
| driveId | Yes | drive id (drv_…) or "default" |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / driveId / descriptionAdded value: +"drive id (drv_…) or \"default\""Input schema / properties / prefix / descriptionAdded value: +"only list files under this path prefix"Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+ "additionalProperties": false,
+ "properties": {
+ "result": {}
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "result"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description does not contradict the readOnlyHint annotation, but it adds minimal behavioral context beyond the annotation. It does not mention pagination, ordering, or error handling, which are typical for list operations.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 13 words, efficiently conveying the core purpose with no extraneous information. Front-loaded and to the point.
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?
Given the presence of an output schema and the simple nature of a list operation, the description is mostly complete. It could clarify the 'prefix filter' behavior, but overall it adequately covers the tool's functionality.
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 coverage is 100% and the description largely restates the schema's parameter descriptions. No additional parameter semantics are provided, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('List files'), the resource ('in a Drive'), and specifies the driveId format with an optional prefix filter. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_delete_file or drive_put_file.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_project_files. The usage is implied by context but not spelled out. A brief statement about when not to use it would improve clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.