Download Google Drive file content by ID: returns UTF-8 text, base64 for binaries, and exports Docs, Sheets, or Slides.
Download file content. For text files returns UTF-8 text; for binary files returns base64. Google-native docs are exported (Docs→text, Sheets→CSV, Slides→text).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It discloses important behavioral traits: content format varies by file type (text vs binary) and Google-native docs are exported/transformed rather than returned raw. However, it omits permissions requirements, large-file handling, rate limits, and whether the downloaded content is cached or fresh.
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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and progressively adding format details. No waste; every sentence adds value.
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?
The description covers output formats and Google-native handling, which is the most important behavioral context. But without annotations or an output schema, it should also state basic operational facts: whether this requires read permission, if there are size limits, and how errors (e.g., file not found) are surfaced.
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 0% for the single file_id parameter, but the description doesn't need to explain its format (it's a standard identifier). The description focuses on explaining the tool's output behavior instead. With one parameter and clear implied semantics, a 4 is appropriate.
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 ('Download') and resource ('file content'), with useful detail on output formats (UTF-8 vs base64) and Google-native export behavior. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_file (metadata) though the description doesn't explicitly name that distinction.
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?
Implied usage is clear: use this to retrieve file content. However, there's no explicit guidance on when to use this vs get_file (which likely fetches metadata), and no prerequisites or edge cases mentioned beyond the format handling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.