grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

drive.replies.update

Update an existing Google Drive comment reply with patch semantics to change fields such as content, action, or assignee without replacing the entire reply.

Instructions

Updates a reply with patch semantics. For more information, see Manage comments and replies [HTTP PATCH] — updates the resource; 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: create, delete, get, list.

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.
`replyId`	Yes	[URL path segment] The ID of the reply.
`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"
+}

Changed4 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."

changedInput schema / properties / replyId / description

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

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

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does a solid job: it discloses patch semantics (partial mutation), the HTTP PATCH method, that the call is refused under --readonly safety profiles, and that it returns the API response resource as JSON. It omits error behavior and permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core verb+resource, then method, safety note, return shape, and siblings in a compact paragraph. The embedded documentation link and the trailing sibling list add length without much decision value, but there is no filler sentence.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the description still notes JSON response resource. For a mutation tool with zero annotations it covers method, safety profile, body mechanism, and siblings; the notable remaining gap is which Reply fields are actually patchable versus read-only.

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. The description enumerates body fields ('action, assigneeEmailAddress, author, content...') and explains the params-vs-body_file mechanism, but that largely restates the request_body schema; it doesn't clarify which fields are actually mutable under patch semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Updates a reply with patch semantics'), which is unambiguous and immediately differentiates it from the read/create/delete siblings it later names. It stops short of explaining how 'update' differs behaviorally from the create/get/list siblings beyond the verb, so it's clear but not maximally distinguishing.

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 lists the sibling operations ('create, delete, get, list') which gives some routing context, and notes the readonly-profile refusal. However, it never says when to prefer this tool, what preconditions exist (e.g. you must own the comment or have edit rights), or why one would patch rather than delete-and-recreate.

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

Deploy Server