grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

drive.replies.create

Create a reply to a Google Drive comment using file and comment IDs; pass reply fields as JSON or preview the request with dry run.

Instructions

Creates a reply to a comment. For more information, see Manage comments and replies [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 Reply object accepting action, assigneeEmailAddress, author, content, createdTime, deleted, htmlContent, id and 3 more fields; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: delete, get, list, update.

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] The ID of the file.
`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 Reply object.
`commentId`	Yes	[URL path segment] The ID of the comment.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type Reply: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`kind`	No
`action`	No
`author`	No
`content`	No
`deleted`	No
`createdTime`	No
`htmlContent`	No
`modifiedTime`	No
`assigneeEmailAddress`	No
`mentionedEmailAddresses`	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 Reply object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type Reply: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "action": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "assigneeEmailAddress": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "author": {
+      "properties": {
+        "displayName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "emailAddress": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "kind": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "me": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "permissionId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "photoLink": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "content": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "createdTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "deleted": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "htmlContent": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mentionedEmailAddresses": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "modifiedTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / commentId / description

Previous value: -"The ID of the comment."New value: +"[URL path segment] The ID of the comment."

changedInput schema / properties / fileId / description

Previous value: -"The ID of the file."New value: +"[URL path segment] The ID of the file."

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "action": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "assigneeEmailAddress": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "author": {
+      "properties": {
+        "displayName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "emailAddress": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "kind": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "me": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "permissionId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "photoLink": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "content": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "createdTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "deleted": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "htmlContent": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mentionedEmailAddresses": {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    "modifiedTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the load and does well: it discloses that this is an HTTP POST that creates/triggers a change, that it is refused under --readonly safety profiles, and that it returns the API's response resource as JSON. It does not mention required OAuth scopes or permission constraints, which is the main remaining gap.

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 first sentence is a clean, front-loaded statement, but the middle section pads with a docs link and an 'id and 3 more fields' enumeration that duplicates the schema rather than adding information.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description supplies the safety profile, the mutation status, the return shape (reinforcing the existing output schema), and both body-passing mechanisms. Only authorization expectations are missing, which keeps it from a 5.

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% and the body fields (action, content, assigneeEmailAddress, etc.) are already documented in the schema, so the description's enumeration mostly repeats structured data. It does add value by clarifying the merge behavior between `params`, `body_file` and `request_body`, but leaves field semantics (e.g., allowed `action` values) unexplained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a reply to a comment') and explicitly names the sibling operations over the same resource (delete, get, list, update), which lets an agent distinguish it without opening schemas.

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 implied by the verb and the sibling list, and the read-only refusal note acts as a gating condition, but there is no explicit 'use this instead of drive.comments.create when...' or prerequisite guidance (e.g., who may reply to a comment).

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

Deploy Server