Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

drive.channels.stop

Stop receiving push notifications for Drive resource changes by closing a notification channel. Use it to end an active watch when change alerts are no longer needed.

Instructions

Stops watching resources through this channel. For more information, see Notifications for resource changes [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 Channel object accepting address, expiration, id, kind, params, payload, resourceId, resourceUri and 2 more fields; pass it via params or whole via body_file

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
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 Channel object.
request_bodyNoRequest body of type Channel: 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 Channel object."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_body
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type Channel: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "address": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "expiration": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "params": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "payload": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "resourceId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "resourceUri": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "token": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "type": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does add some useful context (refused under --readonly safety profiles, return format, body structure), but it falsely states 'creates or triggers a change' for a stop operation and does not explain what happens to existing watches or which body fields are required. The misleading statement is a significant flaw.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the description is bloated with a documentation link, a confusing HTTP POST note, an exhaustive field enumeration, and redundant pass instructions. Several sentences do not earn their place given that the schema already covers the same ground.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 5-parameter tool with a nested body and no output schema, the description does explain the return format and some body details, which is helpful. However, it lacks usage guidance, omits effects on existing watches, and includes a misleading 'creates or triggers a change' statement, leaving gaps for an agent to call 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 all parameters including the nested request body. The description lists body fields ('address, expiration, id, kind, params, payload, resourceId, resourceUri') and explains passing via `params` or `body_file`, but this largely duplicates the schema and adds no new semantic depth.

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 ('stops watching') and resource ('resources through this channel'), clearly distinguishing it from watch/start tools. However, the later note '[HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change' introduces ambiguity about whether this tool actually creates something, muddying the otherwise clear purpose.

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 use case is implied by 'Stops watching resources' but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., gmail.users.stop or calendar.channels.stop), and no exclusions or prerequisites. The link to documentation is provided but not contextualized for decision-making.

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