grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

drive.approvals.comment

Adds a comment to a Drive approval and notifies the initiator and reviewers, with the message recorded in the approval activity log.

Instructions

Comments on an approval. For more information, see Manage approvals. This sends a notification to both the initiator and the reviewers. Additionally, a message is also added to the approval activity log [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 CommentApprovalRequest object accepting message; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: approve, cancel, 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 CommentApprovalRequest object.
`approvalId`	Yes	[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the approval to comment on.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type CommentApprovalRequest: 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 CommentApprovalRequest object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type CommentApprovalRequest: 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 comment on."New value: +"[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the approval to comment on."

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 mutation nature, that a notification goes to both the initiator and reviewers, that an entry is appended to the approval activity log, and that the call is refused under readonly profiles. It stops short of stating the permission/role required to comment on an approval, which matters for a write operation.

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, followed by side effects, safety profile, and body mechanics in a sensible order. The doc link and the long trailing sibling roster are low-value padding but do not obscure the core instruction.

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, yet the description still notes the JSON response resource; combined with the documented notification and activity-log side effects and the readonly refusal, an agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and what will happen if it does.

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 baseline is 3. The description restates the request-body mechanics ('a JSON CommentApprovalRequest object accepting message; pass it via `params` or whole via `body_file`') but that is almost verbatim what the schema's request_body and body_file descriptions already say, so it adds little beyond structured data.

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 first sentence gives a specific verb and resource ('Comments on an approval'), and the closing sentence names the sibling operations over the same resource (approve, cancel, decline, get, list, reassign, start), so an agent can place it precisely in the approval operation family.

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 fixed literal '[HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change; refused under --readonly safety profiles' states a real constraint but gives no positive guidance on when to comment vs. approve, decline, or reassign. The sibling list is enumeration rather than routing: it tells the agent what else exists, not which condition selects this one.

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

Deploy Server