Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

drive.accessproposals.get

Retrieve a Google Drive access proposal by file ID and proposal ID to inspect pending access requests. Returns the proposal as JSON for review before resolving.

Instructions

Retrieves an access proposal by ID. For more information, see Manage pending access proposals [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 Siblings over the same resource: list, resolve.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
fileIdYes[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the item the request is on.
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.
proposalIdYes[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the access proposal to resolve.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileIdNo
createTimeNo
proposalIdNo
rolesAndViewsNo
requestMessageNo
recipientEmailAddressNo
requesterEmailAddressNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / fileId / description
      Previous value: -"Required. The ID of the item the request is on."New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the item the request is on."
    • changedInput schema / properties / proposalId / description
      Previous value: -"Required. The ID of the access proposal to resolve."New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the access proposal to resolve."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "createTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "fileId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "proposalId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "recipientEmailAddress": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "requestMessage": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "requesterEmailAddress": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "rolesAndViews": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "role": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "view": {
+            "type": "string"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose that this is an HTTP GET returning JSON, and explains the parameter-merging precedence (typed flags win over `params`, or read whole from `body_file`), which is useful context. It says nothing about permission requirements or error/not-found behavior for a proposal lookup, so the disclosure is partial.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the doc link is tucked at the end. However, the sentence about request bodies being built from typed parameters or `body_file` is largely boilerplate for a bodyless GET and consumes attention disproportionately.

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

Completeness5/5

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 need not be described, and schema coverage is complete for the two required IDs. A documentation link is provided for further detail, which is appropriate for a narrowly scoped single-resource get.

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 the schema already documents fileId and proposalId as required URL path segments. The description adds only the merge-precedence rule for `params` vs typed parameters and `body_file`, which is marginal added meaning; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Retrieves an access proposal by ID.' It also names the sibling operations on the same resource (list, resolve), so an agent can place it in the family, though it does not explain how get differs functionally from resolve.

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 trailing 'Siblings over the same resource: list, resolve' hints that this is the read-one-of-many operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or prerequisite information. The agent must infer that list enumerates and resolve acts, leaving usage implied rather than stated.

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