Skip to main content
Glama
googlarz

Proton Drive MCP

by googlarz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Invite to share

drive_share_invite

Invite a person to a Proton Drive file or folder by email; sends a notification and assigns viewer, editor, or admin roles. Requires prior status check and user confirmation to avoid overwriting.

Instructions

Invite a person to a Proton Drive file or folder by email. Immediately sends an email notification — confirm the address and role with the user first. Roles: 'viewer' (read-only), 'editor' (read + write), 'admin' (read + write + reshare). Run drive_share_status first: a duplicate invitation may silently overwrite the existing role. Requires confirmed=true after explicit user approval.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute remote Drive path to share (must start with '/').
roleYes'viewer' = read-only, 'editor' = read + write, 'admin' = read + write + reshare.
emailYesEmail address of the person to invite.
messageNoOptional message included in the invitation email (max 500 characters — Proton rejects longer ones).
confirmedNoMust be true; only after the user approved this exact action.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.2.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / confirmed / description
      Previous value: -"Must be true. Only set after the user explicitly approved this exact action."New value: +"Must be true; only after the user approved this exact action."
    • changedInput schema / properties / message / description
      Previous value: -"Optional message included in the invitation email (max 2000 characters)."New value: +"Optional message included in the invitation email (max 500 characters — Proton rejects longer ones)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.38
    • addedInput schema / properties / confirmed
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Must be true. Only set after the user explicitly approved this exact action.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  3. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.2
    • changedInput schema / properties / message / description
      Previous value: -"Optional message to include in the invitation."New value: +"Optional message included in the invitation email (max 2000 characters)."
    • changedInput schema / properties / path / description
      Previous value: -"Remote Drive path to share."New value: +"Absolute remote Drive path to share (must start with '/')."
    • changedInput schema / properties / role / description
      Previous value: -"Access level to grant."New value: +"'viewer' = read-only, 'editor' = read + write, 'admin' = read + write + reshare."
  4. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false; the description adds crucial behavior the annotations do not: an email is sent immediately, a duplicate invite may silently overwrite the existing role, and confirmed=true is mandatory after user approval. This is exactly the kind of side-effect disclosure an agent needs.

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 action, then constraints, then role meanings. Every sentence carries behavioral weight, though the role listing mildly duplicates the enum descriptions already in the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and a mutation-style tool, the description supplies the missing pieces: side effects, the overwrite risk, required confirmation, and cross-tool sequencing. Nothing essential for correct invocation is absent.

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 all five parameters including the role enum and confirmed flag are already documented in the schema. The description largely restates the role meanings and confirmed requirement rather than adding new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (invite) plus resource (a person, by email, to a Proton Drive file or folder), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like drive_share_status and drive_share_revoke.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit prerequisites and sequencing: confirm address and role with the user first, run drive_share_status beforehand to avoid a silent overwrite, and only call after explicit user approval with confirmed=true. It names the alternative tool and the condition selecting it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools