gmail-multi-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Upload a file to Drive

drive_upload

Upload a file to Google Drive using inline text or an existing local file. Specify account and optional folder; the file stays private until shared.

Instructions

Put a file in Drive. Give either "content" for text you composed, or "local_path" for a file that already exists on the machine running this server — exactly one of the two. The file is private to the account until something shares it.

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "drive_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	File name in Drive, including its extension.
`account`	Yes	Configured account: the email address, or the alias given at setup.
`content`	No	Inline text content.
`mime_type`	No	MIME type. Guessed from the file extension when omitted.
`local_path`	No	Absolute path to a file on the machine running this server.
`parent_folder_id`	No	Destination folder. Defaults to the root of My Drive.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Sep 15, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the write nature is known. The description adds a useful privacy note ('The file is private to the account until something shares it'), which goes beyond annotations. It does not describe overwrite behavior, return format, or side effects like idempotency, but the annotations cover the basic safety profile.

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 sentences with zero filler. The action is front-loaded, and the exclusivity constraint and privacy note are delivered efficiently. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a 6-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main decision (content vs. path) and the default folder behavior is in the schema. However, it does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., file ID or URL), which is important for chaining operations. It also omits any mention of authentication requirements or failure modes, leaving some gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The tool description adds critical meaning by specifying that content and local_path are mutually exclusive ('exactly one of the two'), a constraint not present in the schema. This clarifies a non-obvious relationship and aids correct invocation.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a clear verb+resource ('Put a file in Drive') and immediately distinguishes two input modes (inline content vs. local file). It is specific enough to separate this from sibling tools like drive_create_doc or drive_read, and the title reinforces the action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear guidance on when to use content versus local_path ('exactly one of the two'), which is valuable. However, it does not explicitly contrast this tool with alternatives (e.g., drive_create_doc for Google Docs) or state when not to use it. The usage context is implied but not explicit about exclusions.

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