Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

drive.accessproposals.list

Lists access proposals on a Drive file so approvers can review pending access requests. Returns proposals as JSON; non-approvers receive a 403 error.

Instructions

List the access proposals on a file. For more information, see Manage pending access proposals. Note: Only approvers are able to list access proposals on a file. If the user isn't an approver, a 403 error is returned [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: get, 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.
pageSizeNo[query parameter] Optional. The number of results per page.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.
pageTokenNo[query parameter] Optional. The continuation token on the list of access requests.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nextPageTokenNo
accessProposalsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 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 / pageSize / description
      Previous value: -"Optional. The number of results per page."New value: +"[query parameter] Optional. The number of results per page."
    • addedInput schema / properties / pageSize / format
      Added value: +"int32"
    • changedInput schema / properties / pageToken / description
      Previous value: -"Optional. The continuation token on the list of access requests."New value: +"[query parameter] Optional. The continuation token on the list of access requests."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "accessProposals": {
+      "items": {
+        "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"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "nextPageToken": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key behavioral traits: read-only HTTP GET, JSON response, and a hard authorization gate that produces a 403. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or ordering of returned proposals, which is the only remaining gap.

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 first three sentences are front-loaded and waste nothing. The trailing sentence about request bodies, body_file, and typed-vs-params precedence is template boilerplate irrelevant to a GET list endpoint and dilutes the useful content.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has an output schema, so return values need no explanation, and the description supplies the one non-obvious fact an agent would otherwise miss: the approver-only permission requirement. What remains — pagination semantics beyond the schema text — is minor for a 7-parameter list call.

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 fileId, pageSize, and pageToken are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The note that typed flags win over the `params` map restates the schema's own wording for `params` rather than adding new meaning.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb (List) and resource (access proposals) scoped to a single file, which is exactly what an agent needs. It also names the sibling operations on the same resource (get, resolve), so the agent can place this tool in the family without inspecting other schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives a concrete precondition — only approvers may list, otherwise a 403 is returned — which is genuine routing guidance. It does not explicitly say when to prefer get or resolve over list, but the read-many nature of the tool makes that inference cheap.

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