Google Drive MCP

by EgCooper

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (upload, update, download, move, delete, create folder). The only potential overlap is between list_files and search_files, but list_files is folder-scoped with optional filters while search_files is a global name search, which is a meaningful distinction.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern with consistent snake_case naming: list_files, search_files, get_file_info, download_file, upload_text_file, update_text_file, create_folder, move_file, delete_file. The convention is uniform across the entire set.
Tool Count5/5
With 9 tools, the set is well-scoped for a Google Drive server. Each tool addresses a core operation (list, search, get info, download, upload, update, create folder, move, delete) without unnecessary redundancy, striking a good balance between coverage and simplicity.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the essential file and folder lifecycle: create, read, update (content), delete, move, and search. Minor gaps exist such as no rename or copy tool, and no permission/sharing operations, but these are not critical for basic Drive management and can be worked around.
Average 3.6/5 across 9 of 9 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action and does not mention that this is a read-only operation, potential side effects (none), required permissions, or export formats. The description is too minimal to make behavioral traits transparent.
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 extremely concise, with two sentences: the first states the purpose and the second lists the single argument. The purpose is front-loaded, and no superfluous content is present.
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 tool is simple (one parameter) and an output schema exists, so return details are not required. However, the description omits useful context like export formats (e.g., PDF, DOCX), whether the operation is read-only, and how it differs from get_file_info. It is minimally viable but not rich enough for a fully informed agent.
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?
The only parameter, file_id, is described as 'ID del archivo a descargar', which merely restates the schema's property name ('File Id') and adds no new meaning such as format, source, or lookup method. With schema description coverage at 0%, the description fails to compensate with richer context.
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 states a specific action ('Descarga el contenido de un archivo de texto, o exporta Docs/Sheets/Slides') with a clear resource and format. It distinguishes the tool from siblings like upload_text_file or delete_file by indicating it is for downloading/exporting content.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like get_file_info and list_files are not mentioned, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites provided. The only context is the operation itself, which does not help an agent decide between tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description alone must disclose behavior. It only covers basic parameter semantics and does not mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it includes trashed files, how pagination works beyond page_size, or what happens with invalid folder IDs. This is a significant gap for a simple instrument.
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 concise and well-structured: a single purpose sentence followed by a clean Args list. Every sentence adds value, no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded with the primary purpose.
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 presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values. However, the description lacks behavioral context such as whether it lists only immediate children, whether shared files appear, or how the page_size parameter integrates with pagination. For a simple listing tool it is minimally adequate, but leaves room for more behavioral detail.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively by explaining each parameter: folder_id (empty = root), page_size (1-100), and name_contains (optional filter). All three parameters receive meaningful context beyond the schema's bare titles and types.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists files and folders in Google Drive, using a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('archivos y carpetas en Google Drive'). It is distinct from sibling tools like search_files or get_file_info, but does not explicitly name or contrast itself against them, so it misses the full 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The description implies listing a folder's contents but doesn't explain when to choose this over search_files or other siblings. No exclusions or conditions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations, and the description only states the action and parameter details. It adds minimal behavioral context (e.g., 'Vacío = raíz' for parent_id) but does not disclose error handling, idempotency, or return behavior.
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 sentence plus a compact args list. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and has no unnecessary words.
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?
Given the simplicity of creating a folder, the essential purpose and parameters are covered. However, the lack of behavioral details (e.g., duplicate handling, permissions) and absence of usage guidance makes it somewhat incomplete, though the output schema may fill some gaps.
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 schema has zero description coverage, and the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'name' (Nombre de la carpeta) and 'parent_id' (Carpeta padre, Vacío = raíz). This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema types.
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 'Crea una carpeta en Google Drive' (creates a folder in Google Drive), which is a specific verb+resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on files (list_files, delete_file, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, there is no mention of how it relates to uploading files or moving files, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It states the tool updates content but does not disclose whether it replaces the entire content, what happens if the file does not exist, or whether special permissions are required. This is minimal and leaves significant ambiguity for an agent.
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 extremely concise and well-structured. The main sentence states the purpose directly, followed by a clear Args section. No unnecessary words or repetition; it gets straight to the point and is easy to parse.
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?
For a simple two-parameter update tool, this description is minimally viable. It includes an output schema (not shown) so return values are not required. However, it lacks usage guidance, behavioral details like overwrite semantics, and any mention of alternatives, leaving some gaps for an agent to infer.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively: 'file_id: ID del archivo a actualizar' and 'content: Nuevo contenido' clearly explain both parameters. However, it does not provide any format constraints or additional semantics beyond their basic meaning.
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 'Actualiza el contenido de un archivo de texto existente', specifying both the action (update) and the resource (existing text file). This distinguishes it from siblings like upload_text_file, which implies creation or uploading rather than updating an existing file.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention the existence of upload_text_file or other file operations, nor does it state prerequisites or edge cases (e.g., file must exist). The only implicit hint is the word 'existente', but this is not explicit enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves metadata and returns name/type/link, implying a read-only operation. However, it does not disclose permissions, error behavior, or side effects. The description adds some behavioral context by specifying the returned metadata fields, but omits details about edge cases (e.g., file not found, insufficient permissions).
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 highly concise: one sentence stating the purpose plus a brief parameter definition. It front-loads the key purpose and avoids any superfluous text. Every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple metadata-fetching tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states the input (file_id) and what the output will contain (name, type, link), relying on the output schema for return details. It lacks only usage context (covered in dimension 2), and omits potential error scenarios, but these are less critical given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains that file_id is 'ID del archivo en Google Drive' (ID of the file in Google Drive), which adds meaning beyond the schema's generic 'File Id'. However, it does not elaborate on the format or expected values, and since there is only one parameter, the compensation is minimal but sufficient for a simple ID lookup.
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 uses a specific verb 'Obtiene' (gets) and clearly identifies the resource as 'metadatos de un archivo o carpeta' (metadata of a file or folder). It lists the specific metadata fields (name, type, link), which distinguishes it from sibling tools that list, search, download, or modify files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only states what the tool does, with no mention of when to choose get_file_info over list_files, search_files, or download_file. There are no exclusions or contextual hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic action and does not mention side effects (e.g., original removed, overwrite behavior), permission requirements, or failure conditions. This is a significant gap for a mutation operation.
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 extremely concise, with a clear single-sentence purpose followed by a compact Args list. Every word adds value, with no redundant or filler content. The structure is easy to parse and front-loads the main action.
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 tool is simple with two well-documented parameters and an output schema exists, so return values are not needed. However, the absence of behavioral context—such as whether the move overwrites, requires special permissions, or permanently deletes the source—leaves the description incomplete for an agent to fully anticipate consequences.
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 description explicitly explains both parameters: file_id as the ID of the file/folder to move, and folder_id as the ID of the destination folder. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema types and required flags, compensating for the 0% schema description coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Mueve' = moves) and clearly identifies the resource (file or folder) and destination (another folder). It uniquely distinguishes this tool from siblings like delete_file or upload_text_file, all of which perform different operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for relocating files or folders, but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. It is not misleading, but the context is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It only explains the purpose and parameter roles; it does not disclose behaviors like whether it overwrites existing files, permission requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The only extra behavioral detail is that an empty folder_id means root.
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 appropriately sized: one opening sentence stating purpose, followed by a concise list of parameter explanations. Every line adds necessary value, and the structure is front-loaded with the main action.
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 tool is simple, but the description lacks behavioral context such as overwrite behavior, prerequisites like authentication, and what happens if folder_id is invalid. Output schema is present, so return values don't need explanation, but for a write operation with no annotations, more behavioral disclosure would make it more complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description is the sole source of parameter meaning. It provides clear explanations for name (with example), content, and folder_id, including the behavior of empty folder_id. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.
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 tool uploads a new text file to Google Drive, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like update_text_file by explicitly saying 'nuevo' (new), which implies creation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating new text files but does not explicitly mention when to use this over alternatives like update_text_file. The 'nuevo' hint provides some differentiation, but there is no direct comparison or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds the scope 'en todo Google Drive' but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what the return format is, or any error/rate-limit behavior. This is a significant gap for a tool with no other safety signals.
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 extremely concise, with two sentences and a clean Args list. Front-loaded and free of fluff, every word earns its place.
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 tool is simple and has an output schema, so return values are presumably covered. However, the description lacks usage guidance (alternatives) and behavioral transparency (permissions, read-only nature). It is minimally viable but not fully complete given the absence of annotations.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description's Args section compensates effectively. It explains 'query' as text to search in the name and gives a range hint for 'page_size' (1-100), adding practical meaning beyond the raw schema types and default.
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 uses a specific verb 'Busca' (search) and identifies the resource as 'archivos por nombre en todo Google Drive' (files by name across all Google Drive). This clearly states the tool's function and distinguishes it from siblings like list_files or get_file_info.
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 clearly communicates the tool's scope (search by name across Drive), which implies when to use it. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or cases where it should not be used, such as when listing all files is more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals a key behavioral trait: the operation is a soft delete (moves to trash), not a permanent deletion. This is useful and beyond what the raw schema provides, though it could mention side effects like ownership requirements or undoing.
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 one concise sentence plus a clear Args listing. No fluff; every line adds value. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool.
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?
The tool is simple and the description conveys the essential behavior (move to trash, accepts file/folder ID). While it doesn't explain return values or permissions, the presence of an output schema and low complexity keep it adequately complete.
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?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must define the parameter. It does so with 'file_id: ID del elemento a eliminar', adding meaning by specifying that the element can be a file or folder. This goes slightly beyond the bare schema field.
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 tool's function: 'Mueve un archivo o carpeta a la papelera de Google Drive' (moves a file or folder to Google Drive trash). This is a specific verb+resource+destination, and it distinguishes from sibling 'move_file' by specifying the trash as the target.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage (when you want to delete something) but does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives like move_file or permanent deletion. It does not mention any exclusions or prerequisites, so usage guidance is only implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP-GOOGLE MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EgCooper/MCP-GOOGLE/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EgCooper/MCP-GOOGLE)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![MCP-GOOGLE MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EgCooper/MCP-GOOGLE/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EgCooper/MCP-GOOGLE)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/EgCooper/MCP-GOOGLE'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server