Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

drive.operations.get

Poll the current state of a long-running Google Drive operation by name and return its JSON result for progress tracking.

Instructions

Gets the latest state of a long-running operation. Clients can use this method to poll the operation result at intervals as recommended by the API service [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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes[URL path segment] The name of the operation resource.
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.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
doneNo
nameNo
errorNo
metadataNo
responseNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Previous value: -"The name of the operation resource."New value: +"[URL path segment] The name of the operation resource."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "done": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "error": {
+      "properties": {
+        "code": {
+          "type": "integer"
+        },
+        "details": {
+          "items": {
+            "type": "object"
+          },
+          "type": "array"
+        },
+        "message": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "metadata": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "name": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "response": {
+      "type": "object"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

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 full behavioral burden. It does disclose the transport ('HTTP GET') and the request-construction precedence rule (typed flags beat the `params` map), which is real added context. But for a polling tool it omits the most operationally important facts: whether repeated calls are side-effect free, what a completed vs pending response looks like, and any backend rate limits on polling frequency — it only defers to 'intervals as recommended by the API service' without stating them.

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 core purpose and polling guidance are front-loaded in the first sentence, which is the right structure. The trailing sentence about request bodies is largely boilerplate for a GET endpoint and is the one part that does not fully earn its place, though the `body_file`/`params` precedence note has marginal value.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all five parameters are fully described in the schema. What is missing is the behavioral layer that no structured field covers: with zero annotations, the agent cannot tell from the definition whether polling is free of side effects, how to detect a terminal state, or how frequently to poll — all of which matter for correct invocation of a long-running-operation tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents `name`, `query`, `params`, `dry_run`, and `body_file` individually. The description restates the typed-parameter-over-`params`-map precedence and the `body_file` alternative but adds no meaning beyond the schema text, and notably says nothing about the format of the required `name` path segment.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Gets the latest state of a long-running operation'), which is unambiguous and identifiable against the sibling list, none of which expose operations polling. It does not need sibling differentiation because no sibling overlaps, but it also never states the resource naming convention beyond the schema.

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 implies usage ('poll the operation result at intervals as recommended by the API service'), which tells the agent this is a repeated-polling tool rather than a one-shot fetch. However it never states when to stop polling, what condition signals completion, or what to do instead if the operation is already finished — the guidance is suggestive rather than actionable.

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