drive_invitation_acceptAccept a pending Proton Drive sharing invitation using its uid from drive_list_invitations; the shared folder then appears in your Drive.
Accept a pending sharing invitation; the shared folder then appears in your Drive. Get the uid from drive_list_invitations — never guess it.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | Yes | Invitation uid from drive_list_invitations. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Input schema / properties / uid / descriptionPrevious value: -"Invitation UID from drive_list_invitations output. E.g. 'drive:abc123' or 'photos:xyz456'."New value: +"Invitation uid from drive_list_invitations."v1.0.26Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations only carry destructiveHint=false; the description adds the meaningful post-condition that the folder becomes visible in Drive, which the annotation does not convey. It stops short of stating auth requirements or what happens if the invitation is already accepted/expired.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, outcome and sourcing constraint front-loaded, with no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter, non-destructive action with no output schema, the description covers purpose, effect, and parameter sourcing adequately. Minor omissions (auth state, behavior on an invalid/already-accepted uid) keep it short of a 5.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine value beyond the schema by specifying the authoritative source of the uid and forbidding guessing it, reducing copy-paste/hallucination errors.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource ('Accept a pending sharing invitation') and describes the resulting observable state ('the shared folder then appears in your Drive'), which cleanly distinguishes it from the sibling drive_invitation_reject.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly directs the agent to obtain the uid from drive_list_invitations and warns 'never guess it', naming the source tool. It lacks an explicit when-not or a failure-path note, but the routing guidance is clear enough to act on.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.