Uploads a file to Google Drive with a name, MIME type, and text or base64 content. Omit parent ID to save it in My Drive root.
Upload a file. Pass content as text_content (UTF-8 string) OR base64_content (for binary). If parent_id omitted, file lands in My Drive root.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| mime_type | Yes | e.g. text/plain, image/jpeg, application/pdf | |
| parent_id | No | ||
| text_content | No | ||
| base64_content | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses one useful trait — the default destination when parent_id is omitted — but says nothing about whether an upload requires auth, whether duplicate names are rejected or overwritten, size/mime limits, or what the call returns.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two decisions an agent must make (which content field, which parent). Nothing is wasted or repeated from the schema.
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?
For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the key input decisions are covered, but gaps remain around permissions, name-collision behavior, and return values. Adequate but not complete for an agent calling it correctly on first try.
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 coverage is only 20%, so the description has to compensate, and it does: it clarifies that text_content and base64_content are mutually exclusive alternatives and maps each to a content type (UTF-8 vs binary), plus explains the parent_id default. Only `name` and `mime_type` semantics remain thin.
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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Upload a file'), which immediately distinguishes it from read-oriented siblings like read_file, get_file, and list_files. It stops short of explicitly naming or contrasting with any sibling, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives (create_folder, share_file) and no prerequisites or permission/auth context. The parent_id fallback is a behavioral detail, not usage guidance, so the agent gets no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.