grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

drive.approvals.approve

Approves a pending Drive approval by recording your reviewer response as APPROVED and completes the approval when all required reviewers have responded.

Instructions

Approves an approval. For more information, see Manage approvals. This is used to update the ReviewerResponse of the requesting user with a Response of APPROVED. If this is the last required reviewer response, this also completes the approval and sets the approval Status to APPROVED [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 ApproveApprovalRequest object accepting message; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: cancel, comment, decline, get, list, reassign, start.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`fileId`	Yes	[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the file that the approval is on.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON ApproveApprovalRequest object.
`approvalId`	Yes	[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the approval to approve.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type ApproveApprovalRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No
`status`	No
`dueTime`	No
`initiator`	No
`approvalId`	No
`createTime`	No
`modifyTime`	No
`completeTime`	No
`targetFileId`	No
`reviewerResponses`	No
`fileContentChangeBehavior`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

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 ApproveApprovalRequest object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type ApproveApprovalRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "message": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / approvalId / description

Previous value: -"Required. The ID of the approval to approve."New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the approval to approve."

changedInput schema / properties / fileId / description

Previous value: -"Required. The ID of the file that the approval is on."New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the file that the approval is on."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "approvalId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "completeTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "createTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "dueTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "fileContentChangeBehavior": {
+      "enum": [
+        "FILE_CONTENT_CHANGE_BEHAVIOR_UNSPECIFIED",
+        "RESET_APPROVAL",
+        "NO_APPROVAL_ACTION"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "initiator": {
+      "properties": {
+        "displayName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "emailAddress": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "kind": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "me": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "permissionId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "photoLink": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "modifyTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "reviewerResponses": {
+      "items": {
+        "properties": {
+          "kind": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "response": {
+            "enum": [
+              "RESPONSE_UNSPECIFIED",
+              "NO_RESPONSE",
+              "APPROVED",
+              "DECLINED"
+            ],
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "reviewer": {
+            "properties": {
+              "displayName": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "emailAddress": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "kind": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "me": {
+                "type": "boolean"
+              },
+              "permissionId": {
+                "type": "string"
+              },
+              "photoLink": {
+                "type": "string"
+              }
+            },
+            "type": "object"
+          }
+        },
+        "type": "object"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "status": {
+      "enum": [
+        "STATUS_UNSPECIFIED",
+        "IN_PROGRESS",
+        "APPROVED",
+        "CANCELLED",
+        "DECLINED"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "targetFileId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

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 well: it discloses the HTTP POST mutation, the refusal under --readonly safety profiles, the conditional side effect of completing the approval (Status APPROVED) when this is the last required reviewer, and that the API response resource is returned as JSON. Gaps remain on permissions/authorization and idempotency of re-approving.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the effect comes first, then side effects, then transport/safety notes, then the sibling routing list. Every clause (mutation semantics, readonly refusal, body routing, siblings) carries information; nothing is filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, and the description covers mutation semantics, side effects, body construction, and siblings — enough for a 7-parameter tool. The notable remaining gap is authorization: who may approve and what happens if the caller is not the reviewer.

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% and both required path parameters (fileId, approvalId) are documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does explain the ApproveApprovalRequest body shape and the params vs body_file routing, but it largely restates what the schema descriptions already say.

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+resource ('Approves an approval') and immediately clarifies the exact effect: updating the requesting user's ReviewerResponse to APPROVED, and completing the approval when it is the last required response. It also enumerates the sibling operations on the same resource (cancel, comment, decline, get, list, reassign, start), so an agent can distinguish it from drive.approvals.decline without opening schemas.

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?

Usage is implied by the effect described (act as a reviewer to approve), and the readonly-profile refusal note tells the agent when the call will fail. However, the sibling names are listed without conditions — nothing says when to pick decline or reassign instead, or what permission the caller needs to approve.

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

Deploy Server