List files in Google Drive with optional filters for filename, MIME type, and folder. Use it to find specific documents, media, or root contents by query.
List files in Google Drive with optional folder, name, and type filters
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Search by filename | |
| fileType | No | Filter by MIME type (e.g., 'video/', 'image/', 'application/pdf') | |
| folderId | No | Drive folder ID to list (default: root) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'List' implies a safe read, but nothing is said about pagination or result caps, ordering, behavior on an invalid or inaccessible folderId, or permission requirements — all material for a directory-listing call.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The resource and the filter set both land immediately, which is exactly the right shape for a simple list tool.
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?
With three optional params, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is minimally sufficient to invoke, but it never describes what a result looks like (file fields, IDs needed for follow-up drive_download/drive_trash calls) or how large result sets are handled.
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%, so the schema already explains query, fileType (with examples), and folderId (default root). The description only restates the same three filter axes in generic terms; it adds no matching semantics (substring vs. exact vs. Drive query syntax) beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (files in Google Drive) plus the filter axes, which cleanly separates it from drive_upload, drive_download, drive_trash, and drive_create_folder. It doesn't explicitly name or contrast with a sibling, but the operation is unmistakable.
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?
Usage is only implied: calling with no arguments lists root, and each filter narrows results. There is no statement of when to prefer this over other approaches, no note on prerequisites (auth/scope), and no exclusions, but no competing 'list files' sibling exists to route away from.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.