OneDrive MCP Server

get_file

Retrieve details (name, type, size, date) for a specified file or folder in OneDrive. Quickly inspect metadata without downloading the item.

Instructions

Obtiene detalles (nombre, tipo, tamaño, fecha) de un archivo o carpeta.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "get_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`filePath`	Yes	Ruta con prefijo, ej: 'onedrive/PROYECTOS BIT/archivo.docx'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the tool returns metadata (name, type, size, date) for both files and folders, adding behavioral context. However, it does not mention error behavior, permission requirements, or side effects; with no annotations, the description carries the full burden but only partially addresses it.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single sentence that is direct and free of filler, immediately communicating the tool's purpose.

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 simple get-metadata tool, the description covers the core functionality and return fields, but lacks information on error handling and usage context relative to siblings. Given the absence of an output schema, it would benefit from clarifying the return format or behavior on missing paths.

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?

The input schema already fully describes filePath with a clear example and prefix requirement (100% coverage). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that it applies to files or folders.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Obtiene' (gets) and specifies the resource as file or folder, clearly indicating it retrieves metadata rather than content. This distinguishes it from siblings like read_file (content) and list_files (directory listing).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as read_file or list_files. It does not mention exclusions or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the purpose alone.

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

Deploy Server