grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

drive.approvals.decline

Declines a Drive approval for a file, records the reviewer's DECLINED response, and completes the approval with status DECLINED.

Instructions

Declines an approval. For more information, see Manage approvals. This is used to update the ReviewerResponse of the requesting user with a Response of DECLINED. This also completes the approval and sets the approval Status to DECLINED [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 DeclineApprovalRequest object accepting message; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: approve, cancel, comment, 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 DeclineApprovalRequest object.
`approvalId`	Yes	[URL path segment] Required. The ID of the approval to decline.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type DeclineApprovalRequest: 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 DeclineApprovalRequest object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

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

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

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it identifies the operation as HTTP POST that creates or triggers a change, notes refusal under --readonly safety profiles, and explains that the approval is completed and its status set to DECLINED. It also states that the tool returns the API response resource as JSON and describes the request body format.

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 description is front-loaded with the core action and remains information-dense without becoming rambling. It includes a documentation link, HTTP verb, safety note, return behavior, body routing, and sibling list, all of which are relevant, though the paragraph is somewhat overloaded.

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?

Given the absence of annotations and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the important behavioral context: mutation semantics, readonly refusal, status change, return format, and body routing. It lacks permission requirements and edge-case behavior, but it is otherwise complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the schema already documents the parameters thoroughly. The description adds only limited body-routing context ('pass it via params or whole via body_file'), which largely repeats the schema's own descriptions rather than adding new semantic detail.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource (declines an approval) and explains the exact effect: updating the requesting user's ReviewerResponse to DECLINED and completing the approval with Status DECLINED. It also names the sibling approvals tools, so an agent can distinguish it from approve, cancel, comment, get, list, reassign, and start.

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 description gives clear context for what the tool does, but it does not say when to choose decline versus approve, cancel, reassign, or comment. The sibling list names alternatives without providing selection criteria or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server