Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

drive.about.get

Fetch user, Drive, and system capability information from Google Drive; set the required fields parameter to return only the details you need.

Instructions

Gets information about the user, the user's Drive, and system capabilities. For more information, see Return user info. Required: The fields parameter must be set. To return the exact fields you need, see Return specific fields [HTTP GET]. Returns the requested resource as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
userNo
driveThemesNo
appInstalledNo
storageQuotaNo
exportFormatsNo
importFormatsNo
maxUploadSizeNo
maxImportSizesNo
canCreateDrivesNo
teamDriveThemesNo
folderColorPaletteNo
canCreateTeamDrivesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "appInstalled": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "canCreateDrives": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "canCreateTeamDrives": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "driveThemes": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "backgroundImageLink": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "colorRgb": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "exportFormats": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "folderColorPalette": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "importFormats": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "maxImportSizes": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "maxUploadSize": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "storageQuota": {
+      "properties": {
+        "limit": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "usage": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "usageInDrive": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "usageInDriveTrash": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "teamDriveThemes": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "backgroundImageLink": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "colorRgb": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "id": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "user": {
+      "properties": {
+        "displayName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "emailAddress": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "kind": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "me": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "permissionId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "photoLink": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose HTTP GET and JSON output, but it also adds generic boilerplate about request bodies and `body_file` for a read-only GET, and asserts a required `fields` parameter that the schema lacks. Auth scope, rate limits, and the actual shape of the response are unaddressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core purpose is front-loaded, but the description then drifts into documentation links and request-construction boilerplate that is irrelevant to a GET. Sentences like the body_file clause do not earn their place for this endpoint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained. However, the critical `fields` requirement is stated in prose but missing from the schema, leaving a real gap between what the description demands and what an agent can actually pass. For a tool whose sole real input is a field mask, this is a significant omission.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3, but the description's only parameter claim ('fields must be set') references a parameter absent from the schema. This actively misleads an agent about what to supply, and the description adds nothing about the generic query/params/body_file plumbing beyond the schema text.

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 names a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('information about the user, the user's Drive, and system capabilities'), which is meaningfully distinct from file/drive CRUD siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with neighbors like drive.files.get or drive.drives.get, so an agent must infer the boundary from the 'about' phrasing alone.

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?

There is no guidance on when to choose this over drive.files.get or drive.drives.get, nor any exclusions. The only directive is 'the fields parameter must be set,' which is not reflected in the input schema (no `fields` property exists, required count is 0), making the guidance misleading rather than useful.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools