AgentDrive MCP Server

drive_write

Write markdown files to a workspace, creating or updating them with automatic versioning.

Instructions

Write a markdown file to a workspace. Creates or updates the file with automatic versioning.

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": {
      "workspace_id": "<workspace_id>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "drive_write"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`path`	Yes	File path (e.g. "notes/meeting.md")
`content`	Yes	File content (markdown)
`message`	No	Optional version message
`workspace_id`	Yes	Workspace ID to write to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It mentions automatic versioning, which is useful, but does not disclose potential side effects, overwrite behavior, or permission requirements. The description adds some value but is not comprehensive.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, then an important behavioral detail. No wasted 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 no output schema, the description does not explain return values or error cases. It covers core function and versioning but misses critical context like authorization requirements and path behavior. Adequate but not fully complete.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning to individual parameters; it only reinforces that content is markdown. No added value beyond the schema.

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 action (write) and resource (markdown file) and adds that it creates or updates with versioning. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like drive_read or drive_list, but the purpose is specific enough for a write tool.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or any context about workspace permissions or conflict resolution.

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