Skip to main content
Glama

get-drive-file-list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve files and folders from a Dooray drive, including top-level or subfolder contents, with optional type filtering and pagination. Use it to browse drive structure and identify file IDs and metadata.

Instructions

Get list of files and folders in a Dooray drive.

Required: driveId Optional: parentId (use "root" for top-level), type filter, pagination

Examples:

  • Top-level: { "driveId": "123", "parentId": "root" }

  • Subfolder: { "driveId": "123", "parentId": "456" }

  • Only folders: { "driveId": "123", "parentId": "root", "type": "folder" }

  • With pagination: { "driveId": "123", "parentId": "root", "page": 0, "size": 20 }

Returns: file/folder ID, name, type, size, dates, creator info.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNoPage number (0-based)
sizeNoPage size
typeNoFilter by type
driveIdYesDrive ID
parentIdNoParent folder ID (use "root" for top-level)
subTypesNoFilter by subTypes (e.g. "root,trash")

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context by summarizing the returned file/folder fields and illustrating pagination and root-folder behavior.

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?

The description is front-loaded with purpose, then required/optional parameters, examples, and return values. It is compact and every section contributes to correct invocation.

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?

For a read-only list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers required inputs, common call patterns, pagination, type filtering, and the main fields returned. No critical caller information is missing.

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 six parameters are already documented in the schema. The description provides examples that clarify parentId and pagination, but these largely duplicate schema information and it omits any mention of subTypes.

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?

The description states a clear verb and resource: listing files and folders in a Dooray drive. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as get-drive-file-meta or get-drive-list, so an agent must infer the difference.

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?

It gives useful required/optional parameter guidance and concrete examples for top-level, subfolder, type-filtered, and paginated calls. However, it does not state when to use this tool rather than sibling tools, or when not to use it.

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