get_drive_fileFetch a Drive file's metadata by fileId to get its name, type, size, modified time, and links for viewing or downloading.
Fetch one Drive file’s metadata — name, type, size, modified time, a webViewLink to open it and a webContentLink to download it. Pass fileId (from list_drive_files). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileId | Yes | the Drive file id (from list_drive_files) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.161Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
- "additionalProperties": false,
- "properties": {
- "id": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "name": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "webContentLink": {
- "type": "string"
- },
- "webViewLink": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.15Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description independently confirms 'Read-only.' It adds value by listing the returned metadata fields, which is especially useful because there is no output schema. It does not cover auth or error behavior, but the read-only safety profile is adequately disclosed.
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 compact sentences front-load the operation and return fields, then give the required parameter and a safety note. There is no filler or redundant explanation.
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 one-parameter read-only getter, the description covers what it does, what it returns, where fileId comes from, and that it is safe. Listing the returned fields compensates fully for the absence of an output schema.
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?
The fileId parameter is 100% documented in the schema as 'the Drive file id (from list_drive_files)', and the description repeats that provenance without adding format, constraints, or validation details. Since schema coverage is high, this meets the baseline but adds little beyond it.
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?
The description opens with the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'one Drive file's metadata', then enumerates the exact returned fields (name, type, size, modified time, webViewLink, webContentLink). This clearly distinguishes it from list_drive_files, update_drive_file, delete_drive_file, and get_onedrive_file.
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?
The instruction 'Pass fileId (from list_drive_files)' anchors the intended workflow: first list Drive files, then fetch details for one ID. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but for a single-ID metadata read the usage context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.