drive_org
View your organization details: agents, members, plan, and usage.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
AgentDrive
TDQS
A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates the tool is read-only (via 'View') and lists the data returned, but it does not disclose potential behavioral traits like required permissions, rate limits, or data freshness.
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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with no superfluous words. Every part adds value.
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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned data (agents, members, plan, usage). It is largely complete for a read-only tool, but it could be more precise about the structure (e.g., single object vs. list).
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?
The tool has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (trivially). The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable given there are no parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.
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 uses the verb 'View' and specifies the resource 'organization details', listing specific components (agents, members, plan, usage). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like 'drive_delete' or 'drive_comment'.
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 implies a read-only operation by stating 'View your organization details', which is distinct from many sibling tools. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over others or provide any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but drive_context, drive_recall, and drive_search have overlapping retrieval semantics that could confuse an agent. drive_activity and drive_log_run also have potential ambiguity.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'drive_verb_noun' pattern with clear verbs (e.g., drive_list, drive_write, drive_delete). No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count4/5
20 tools is a reasonable number for a comprehensive workspace management server, covering file operations, collaboration, sandbox, and context retrieval. Not excessive, but slightly above the ideal 3-15 range.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers core CRUD for files, comments, sharing, search, roles, and sandbox features. Missing some minor operations like updating comments or renaming files, but no critical gaps for typical workflows.