grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

drive.changes.getStartPageToken

Retrieve the starting pageToken to begin listing future Google Drive changes, optionally scoped to a shared drive.

Instructions

Gets the starting pageToken for listing future changes. For more information, see Retrieve changes [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: list, watch.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`driveId`	No	[query parameter] The ID of the shared drive for which the starting pageToken for listing future changes from that shared drive will be returned.
`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.
`teamDriveId`	No	[query parameter] Deprecated: Use `driveId` instead.
`supportsAllDrives`	No	[query parameter] Whether the requesting application supports both My Drives and shared drives.	false
`supportsTeamDrives`	No	[query parameter] Deprecated: Use `supportsAllDrives` instead.	false

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	No
`startPageToken`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / driveId / description

Previous value: -"The ID of the shared drive for which the starting pageToken for listing future changes from that shared drive will be returned."New value: +"[query parameter] The ID of the shared drive for which the starting pageToken for listing future changes from that shared drive will be returned."

addedInput schema / properties / supportsAllDrives / default
```
Added value: +"false"
```

changedInput schema / properties / supportsAllDrives / description

Previous value: -"Whether the requesting application supports both My Drives and shared drives."New value: +"[query parameter] Whether the requesting application supports both My Drives and shared drives."

addedInput schema / properties / supportsTeamDrives / default
```
Added value: +"false"
```

changedInput schema / properties / supportsTeamDrives / description

Previous value: -"Deprecated: Use `supportsAllDrives` instead."New value: +"[query parameter] Deprecated: Use `supportsAllDrives` instead."

changedInput schema / properties / teamDriveId / description

Previous value: -"Deprecated: Use `driveId` instead."New value: +"[query parameter] Deprecated: Use `driveId` instead."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "startPageToken": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the HTTP GET method and JSON return, implying a safe read, but omits auth requirements, whether the token expires, and how driveId affects the token. The generic paragraph about request bodies is largely irrelevant to a GET that takes no body.

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 key purpose is front-loaded, but the boilerplate about building request bodies from typed parameters or body_file is padding for a GET operation with no body and dilutes an otherwise short description.

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?

With a full output schema and 100% parameter coverage, the description covers the essential purpose. What is missing is behavioral context around token lifecycle and the driveId scope, but for a simple GET this is close to sufficient.

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 driveId, supportsAllDrives and the deprecated aliases are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is the baseline expectation when the schema is complete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: gets the starting pageToken for listing future changes. A sibling note ('list, watch') signals it is distinct from those tools, though it stops short of explaining the difference in role.

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 only implied — the token is presumably obtained before calling list — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no note that it should be called once before a change feed, and no explanation of how it differs from drive.changes.list.

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

Deploy Server