Google Workspace MCP Server

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 describes the tool's scope and parameter interactions (e.g., how `drive_id` affects listing), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination beyond `page_size`, or what happens on errors. This is adequate but has clear gaps for a mutation-like tool (listing implies read-only, but not explicitly stated).

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 well-structured with a clear opening sentence followed by parameter explanations and a returns section. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though some sentences could be more concise (e.g., the `corpora` explanation is slightly verbose). Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description is mostly complete. It covers parameter semantics thoroughly and includes a returns section, but lacks behavioral details like error handling or pagination beyond `page_size`. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained in detail, but more context on the tool's operation would improve completeness.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate fully. It provides detailed semantics for all 6 parameters beyond their titles, explaining their purposes, defaults, interactions (e.g., `drive_id` with `folder_id` and `corpora`), and usage scenarios. This adds significant value over the bare 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Lists files and folders, supporting shared drives.' It specifies the verb ('Lists') and resource ('files and folders'), and mentions shared drive support. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_docs_in_folder' or 'search_drive_files', which would be needed for a score of 5.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use specific parameters (e.g., 'If `drive_id` is specified...', 'If `drive_id` is not specified...'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_docs_in_folder' or 'search_drive_files', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites, preventing a score of 5.

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