Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

drive.accessproposals.resolve

Approves or denies a pending Google Drive access proposal for a file, optionally setting role, view, and notification. Use it to resolve a specific proposal by file and proposal ID.

Instructions

Approves or denies an access proposal. For more information, see Manage pending access proposals [HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON ResolveAccessProposalRequest object accepting action, role, sendNotification, view; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: get, list.

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. The body is a JSON ResolveAccessProposalRequest object.
proposalIdYes[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the access proposal to resolve.
request_bodyNoRequest body of type ResolveAccessProposalRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / body_file / description
      Previous value: -"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters."New value: +"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON ResolveAccessProposalRequest object."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_body
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type ResolveAccessProposalRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "action": {
+      "enum": [
+        "ACTION_UNSPECIFIED",
+        "ACCEPT",
+        "DENY"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "role": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "sendNotification": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "view": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. Changed2 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."
  3. First observed

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
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 well: it discloses that this is an HTTP POST that creates/triggers a change, that it is refused under --readonly safety profiles, and that it returns the API response resource as JSON. It stops short of stating permission requirements or that accept/deny decisions are not reversible.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence and the rest is compact. Some bracket artifacts ('[HTTP POST]') and an inline link add noise without adding meaning, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

For a 7-param mutation with a nested body object and no output schema, the definition covers the mutation semantics, safety-profile behavior, body shape, and delivery mechanism. Missing only permission/irreversibility context and any description of the returned response resource.

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 coverage is 100%, so field meanings are already documented; the description restates the body fields (action, role, sendNotification, view) and the params-vs-body_file delivery options, which largely duplicates the schema's own request_body text. Baseline 3 is appropriate for a fully documented schema.

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?

States a specific verb pair ('Approves or denies') and the exact resource ('an access proposal'), then names the sibling read operations (get, list) so the write-vs-read split is obvious. An agent can select this without opening the schema.

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?

It points at the pending-access guide and distinguishes itself from the get/list siblings, implying 'use this to act on an existing proposal.' However, it never addresses the far more likely confusion with the sibling tools drive.approvals.approve and drive.approvals.decline, and gives no preconditions (e.g., proposal must be pending, caller must have edit rights).

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