@achi/drive-mcp

search

Find files and folders by name using case-insensitive substring matching. Scans up to 5,000 items per scope to locate the right result.

Instructions

Search files and folders by name (case-insensitive substring match). Scans up to 5,000 items per scope; results may be truncated for huge drives.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes
`limit`	No
`teamId`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It effectively communicates case-insensitive matching, a 5,000-item scan limit per scope, and possible truncation for large drives – all useful beyond the schema.

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 two concise sentences with no redundant phrasing. It front-loads the core action and includes essential limitations without clutter.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers search semantics and truncation risk, but omits parameter meanings, what defines a 'scope', and how results are returned. Given no output schema and no annotations, additional details would improve completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the parameters. The phrase 'by name' implicitly references q, but limit and teamId are left undefined, leaving significant semantic gaps.

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 that the tool searches files and folders by name using a case-insensitive substring match. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_mail and the various list_* browsing tools.

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 this is the tool for name-based searching, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives such as list_files or list_folder_children for browsing. The context is clear but lacks exclusionary guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.