grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

drive.revisions.update

Updates a Google Drive file revision with patch semantics, enabling targeted changes to revision metadata like keepForever or published status without replacing the revision.

Instructions

Updates a revision with patch semantics. For more information, see Manage file revisions [HTTP PATCH] — updates the resource; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON Revision object accepting exportLinks, id, keepForever, kind, lastModifyingUser, md5Checksum, mimeType, modifiedTime and 6 more fields; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: 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.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON Revision object.
`revisionId`	Yes	[URL path segment] The ID of the revision.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type Revision: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`kind`	No
`size`	No
`mimeType`	No
`published`	No
`exportLinks`	No
`keepForever`	No
`md5Checksum`	No
`publishAuto`	No
`modifiedTime`	No
`publishedLink`	No
`originalFilename`	No
`lastModifyingUser`	No
`publishedOutsideDomain`	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 Revision object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type Revision: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "exportLinks": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "keepForever": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "lastModifyingUser": {
+      "properties": {
+        "displayName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "emailAddress": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "kind": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "me": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "permissionId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "photoLink": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "md5Checksum": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mimeType": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "modifiedTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "originalFilename": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "publishAuto": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "published": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "publishedLink": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "publishedOutsideDomain": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "size": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed3 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

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 / revisionId / description

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

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "exportLinks": {
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "id": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "keepForever": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "kind": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "lastModifyingUser": {
+      "properties": {
+        "displayName": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "emailAddress": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "kind": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "me": {
+          "type": "boolean"
+        },
+        "permissionId": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "photoLink": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "md5Checksum": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "mimeType": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "modifiedTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "originalFilename": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "publishAuto": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "published": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "publishedLink": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "publishedOutsideDomain": {
+      "type": "boolean"
+    },
+    "size": {
+      "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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the HTTP method, that the operation is a mutation refused under readonly safety profiles, that it returns the API response resource as JSON, and how the body is supplied. It stops short of saying what actually changes on the revision or whether the change is reversible, which for a mutation is the remaining meaningful gap.

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 purpose, then progressively adds safety, return, and body details, with no filler. Minor redundancy between 'patch semantics' and the bracketed '[HTTP PATCH] — updates the resource' restatement, plus a docs link that occupies space without adding operational guidance.

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 7-parameter mutation tool with nested body objects, the description covers purpose, safety-profile behavior, request-body shape and transport options; the existence of an output schema removes the need to detail return values further. The only omission is the practical effect of the patch (which revision attributes are mutable).

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 baseline is 3. The description adds some value by enumerating accepted Revision body fields and clarifying the params-vs-body_file duality, but this largely restates what the schema's nested request_body object already exposes.

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 revision with patch semantics') and names the sibling operations on the same resource (delete, get, list), so an agent can place it precisely in the CRUD family. It does not differentiate in depth from a hypothetical full-update sibling, but the patch-semantics qualifier does real work.

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 through 'patch semantics' (partial update) and the note that it is refused under --readonly safety profiles, which tells the agent when the call will fail. However there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over delete/get/list or of prerequisites (e.g., that only certain revision fields like keepForever are meaningfully mutable).

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

Deploy Server