GAM MCP Server
Server Quality Checklist
Latest release: v0.1.4
- Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from specific audit steps (e.g., audit_file_counts vs audit_file_inventory) to permission reapplications and user creation. Even the generic run_gam_command is well-defined as an escape hatch.
Naming Consistency5/5All tools use consistent snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (audit_*, reapply_*, create_*, etc.). No mixing of styles or vague verbs.
Tool Count5/526 tools cover the full scope of Google Workspace administration via GAM, including auditing, migration, user/group management, and bulk processing. The count is well-scoped for the domain.
Completeness5/5The tool set covers all major workflows: audit, migration, permission reapplying, user/group creation, and reporting. The inclusion of run_gam_command as an escape hatch ensures no gaps.
Average 4/5 across 26 of 26 tools scored. Lowest: 3.2/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add
glama.jsonto the root of your repository:{ "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json", "maintainers": [ "your-github-username" ] }Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.
How to sync the server with GitHub?
Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.
To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.
How is the quality score calculated?
The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).
Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.
Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).
Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.
Tool Scores
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description does not disclose read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or effects of missing output_sheet_id. Only hints at output recommendation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description includes an Args list and GAM pattern. The pattern adds useful context but increases length; could be more succinct. Structure is adequate.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists but description doesn't clarify return values or behavior (e.g., empty results, errors). Lacks completeness for a tool with 6 optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description lists each parameter with a brief functional description (e.g., 'Optional email to filter logs'), adding value beyond the bare schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves Gmail log events and optionally writes to a Google Sheet, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling audit tools by focusing on Gmail logs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like run_gam_command or audit tools. The description implies usage through parameters but lacks context or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description lacks details on safety, error handling, or behavior when executing arbitrary GAM commands, leaving significant gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short sentences that are front-loaded and efficient, with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an output schema, the description fails to compensate for 0% schema coverage and does not explain how to format args or what GAM is, leaving the agent under-informed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the 'args' parameter format or content, adding no semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool is an 'escape hatch' for GAM commands not covered by dedicated tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises to 'prefer the specific semantic tools when available', providing clear guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Explains non-execution and template syntax. No annotations, so description carries burden. Does not cover side effects, auth, or error handling, but adequate for a command-builder.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two concise paragraphs plus example. Well-structured, no fluff. Could be slightly more readable, but effective.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given 16 parameters and no schema descriptions, description has major gaps. Workflow and key params covered, but many params unexplained. Output schema exists but not shown; still incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage 0% so description must compensate. Only explains gam_command_template and processing_mode. Leaves 13 parameters undocumented (source_type, max_rows, etc.). Example helps but insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states it constructs a GAM bulk command without executing, returns command string for review. Distinguishes from sibling tools validate and run.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides workflow: build then validate then run. Explains processing modes for different use cases (loop for rate-sensitive, csv for parallel, tbatch for nested). Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the output (per-MIME-type breakdown) and includes a GAM command showing it uses `todrive` to write to a Google Sheet. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions required, or error states, which is a gap for a tool with no annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a title, purpose paragraph, argument list, and an example command. It is front-loaded and essential information appears early. The GAM command is detailed but may be extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has a (presumably) detailed output schema but no annotations. The description covers purpose and arguments, but lacks behavioral context like prerequisites, error handling, or permission requirements. Given the complexity and zero annotations, more completeness expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. While it lists arguments with brief explanations (e.g., 'The email of the user who owns the source folder' for user_email), these add only minimal meaning beyond the schema. No details on constraints, formats, or relationships are given.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'File count and storage summary' and 'Produces a per-MIME-type breakdown of file counts and storage used inside the source folder.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_file_inventory, which likely lists individual files. The purpose is specific and actionable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes it is 'Useful for capacity planning on the destination Shared Drive' and is labeled as 'Step 3', implying a workflow context. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use or direct comparisons to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. The provided GAM command suggests it writes to a sheet, but the description itself lacks behavioral clarity.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with purpose and includes parameter details, but the large GAM command block is extraneous for an AI agent and could be shortened or moved to examples.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It provides enough context about the tool's purpose and inputs, though it could clarify whether the tool returns data or solely writes to a sheet.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context for each parameter, e.g., 'user_email: The email of the user who owns the source folder.' This clarifies parameter roles beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it audits files accessible to 'anyone with the link' or publicly, labeling them as highest-risk. It distinguishes from siblings like audit_external_permissions and audit_all_permissions by focusing on public access specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when assessing inherited public file risks, mentioning Shared Drives restrictions. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternative tools for similar tasks.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions multiprocess redirect for sheet output and shows a GAM command pattern, but lacks details on permissions required, error handling, or side effects. This is minimal transparency for a data retrieval operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured: purpose first, then parameter list, then GAM pattern. It is concise with no unnecessary words, though the code block could be slightly trimmed. Front-loads the core action effectively.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 4 parameters (1 required) and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and provides a usage pattern. The output schema exists but return values are not explained, which is acceptable. It lacks error handling or edge cases, but is adequate for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all four parameters: user_emails (list), label (default INBOX), output_sheet_id (optional), output_sheet_name (default 'Email Counts'). The GAM pattern also clarifies usage context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Retrieves' and the resource 'email counts for specific labels across multiple users'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling audit and GAM tools by specifying its unique function of counting emails by label for multiple users, optionally outputting to a sheet.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a GAM pattern and mentions multiprocess redirect, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusion criteria or alternative tool references are given, relying on implied context from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided. The description only states the basic purpose without disclosing what happens on failure, permissions needed, rate limits, or response structure. The output schema exists but is not referenced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise with three clear lines: purpose, argument explanation, and GAM pattern. No unnecessary words; front-loaded with the core action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature (1 param, output schema), the description covers the basics but lacks behavioral details and usage context. It is minimally adequate but not thorough.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds useful meaning to the 'identifier' parameter by clarifying it accepts an email address or resource identifier, going beyond the schema's minimal title. With 0% schema description coverage, this compensation is valuable.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool identifies a Workspace entity by email or ID, with explicit types (user, group, alias). This is specific and distinct from sibling tools which focus on auditing, permissions, or GAM commands.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a GAM pattern example but gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search or lookup tools. No when-not-to-use or comparison to siblings is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, but the description discloses that the tool does not execute the command, only validates structure, and returns 'VALID' or error messages. It does not mention any required permissions, network access, or prerequisites like GAM installation, which would be helpful for an agent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every sentence adds valuable information. No redundant or verbose phrasing.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are handled. The description covers what the tool checks and that it returns validation results. Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no annotations), it is fairly complete, though it could add more context on the expected input format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The only parameter 'args' is an array of strings with 0% schema description coverage. The description vaguely implies it represents a GAM command but does not explain the expected format (e.g., should it include the word 'gam'? Is it space-separated tokens?). This lack of detail hinders correct invocation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool validates the structure of a proposed GAM command before execution, and explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'run_gam_command' by stating 'Does NOT execute the command'. It also lists specific checks (executable availability, known top-level verbs, bulk command structural rules).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage before executing a command, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'build_bulk_gam_command' or 'run_gam_command'. No when-not or exclusion criteria are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses preview/execute behavior via the confirmed parameter and mentions redirect capabilities, but does not warn about potential destructive actions from the GAM command or specify required permissions for operator_email.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is reasonably concise and well-structured, with a clear purpose statement, an Args section, and a GAM pattern overview. It could be slightly more terse but effectively communicates essential information without excessive verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (9 parameters, bulk operation, output schema exists), the description covers parameter behavior and preview/execute logic well, but it does not explain the return values or output schema. It also omits error handling and limits, leaving gaps for an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates well by explaining each parameter with context, e.g., operator_email needs sheet access and gam_command_template uses ~ColumnName syntax. The GAM pattern example provides additional clarity, though some parameter format details are omitted.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Executes a GAM bulk command using a Google Sheet as the data source.' This is a specific verb and resource, differentiating it from siblings like run_gam_command (single command) and build_bulk_gam_command (command construction).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains the tool's operation and parameters but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives, nor does it provide conditions for not using it. The usage is implied by the name and description but lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the preview behavior via 'confirmed' parameter, but does not cover other behavioral traits such as error handling (e.g., duplicate user) or idempotency. No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden but falls short.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise, starting with a clear purpose then listing parameters and a GAM pattern. It is front-loaded and avoids unnecessary detail, though the parameter list is somewhat redundant with the schema.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the schema has no descriptions and no annotations, the description covers all parameters and the preview behavior, but lacks information about outcomes (e.g., whether the user already exists) or prerequisites. An output schema exists, so return value explanation is not needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful explanations for each parameter (e.g., 'first_name: The first name of the user.'). This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though some parameters like password lack constraints.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Creates a new Google Workspace user' with a specific verb and resource, and the list of parameters aligns with that purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools which are largely audit or bulk processing tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a GAM pattern for context but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The 'confirmed' parameter hints at a preview mode, but no explicit usage guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output to a Google Sheet and multiprocess redirect, but does not address permissions, error conditions, or whether the sheet is created or overwritten. The description implies a read operation but writing to a sheet is a side effect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and well-structured, with a purpose statement, usage note, parameter list, and GAM pattern. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, though the GAM pattern may be extraneous for some users.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers core functionality and parameters but does not explain the return value or behavior (e.g., whether the sheet is appended or overwritten). The presence of an output schema may help, but without it, the description leaves some gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: group_emails as list of email addresses, output_sheet_id as Google Sheet ID, and output_sheet_name as tab name. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves group members and their roles, outputting to a Google Sheet. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools that audit other aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for exporting group member roles to a sheet and mentions multiprocess for speed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like audit_all_permissions or reapply_user_group_permissions. The GAM pattern provides technical context but lacks comparative guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It explains the tool flags external permissions and provides the GAM command, but does not explicitly state whether it is read-only, what side effects exist, or authorization needs. The GAM command implies a read operation, but not stated directly.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a title, purpose statement, parameter list, and GAM command. It is concise and front-loaded with the purpose. The GAM command adds length but provides useful implementation detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, parameters, and usage context. It lacks explicit output or error information, but the GAM command and context provide sufficient completeness for a tool with this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description lists parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'The email of the user who owns the source folder.'). These add some meaning beyond parameter names but are minimal; for example, 'domain' includes an example value. Overall, the parameter descriptions are helpful but not rich.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description starts with 'Step 7 — Files shared with users outside your organisation.' and states it 'flags files that have at least one permission entry for a user NOT in the specified domain.' This provides a specific verb and resource, clearly differentiating from sibling audit tools like audit_all_permissions or audit_public_files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions that flagged files 'may require cleanup or re-evaluation before migrating to a Shared Drive,' providing context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, though the sibling list implies other tools for other audits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It implies a read operation ('List', 'Confirms') but does not explicitly state it is non-destructive or mention side effects like overwriting sheet data. The write to Google Sheets is a behavioral trait that should be disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is clear but includes a verbose GAM command block that is not essential for an AI agent's understanding of the tool's purpose or invocation. It could be more concise by omitting the implementation detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers tool purpose, parameters, and usage context (migration step). With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. Lacks details on error conditions or what happens if the user is not a Manager, but overall sufficient for the complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description explains all three parameters clearly: user_email ('admin user running the query'), sheet_id ('Google Sheet for output'), and sheet_name (with default). This adds essential meaning beyond the schema's bare titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists existing Shared Drives and their members, which distinguishes it from sibling audit tools focused on permissions, files, or other entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context: it's step 10 in a migration process, confirms destination drive existence and access levels, and states the prerequisite that the migrating user must be a Manager on the drive. No explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use, but clear usage scenario.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behaviors. It states it prints and writes results, lists fields, and mentions excludetrashed. However, it does not clarify whether results overwrite or append to the sheet, nor does it address permissions, rate limits, or error handling.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections for overview, fields, note, args, and command. Though lengthy, it remains organized and front-loads key info. The detailed GAM command is helpful but adds verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema (content unknown), the description covers core functionality, parameters, and fields returned. It lacks explicit edge-case handling but is sufficient for typical use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully by explaining all four parameters (user_email, folder_id, sheet_id, sheet_name) with details on defaults and purpose. The GAM command verifies the mapping.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a file/folder inventory under a source folder, prints metadata, and writes to a Google Sheet. The title 'audit_file_inventory' and the step labeling 'Master file/folder inventory' strongly distinguish it from sibling tools like audit_all_permissions or audit_file_counts, which focus on specific audits.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is Step 2 in a process, suggesting an ordering, but it does not explicitly instruct when to use this tool versus others. It includes a note about creating the sheet, but lacks guidance on alternatives or when not to use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. Description includes a GAM command showing fields, excludetrashed, and output to Sheet, giving moderate behavioral insight. Does not mention authentication needs or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Main description is concise, but the full GAM command is long and could be summarized. The structure is acceptable but not optimized for quick scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed. Description covers purpose, parameters, and a detailed command. Could mention what the sheet columns will be, but sufficient for an audit tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 4 parameters are described in the context of the GAM command, adding meaning beyond the sparse schema (0% coverage). For example, user_email is 'the email of the user who owns the source folder.'
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clear statement: 'Step 4 — Files owned by the migrating user. ... This audit isolates those items.' Distinguishes purpose from siblings like audit_not_owned_files, specifying it identifies files that can be moved.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly placed as Step 4 in a migration process, implying when to use. Not explicitly stating when not to use, but sibling tools list provides alternative audit options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description marks the tool as 'DESTRUCTIVE' and requires confirmation, which is key behavioral information. It also mentions that confirmed=False returns a preview. However, it lacks details on what exactly is destroyed (e.g., overwriting existing permissions) and does not discuss rate limits or authentication needs beyond the user_email parameter. Without annotations, the description carries the full burden and could be more thorough.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with a title, caution, parameter list, and a long GAM command block. While front-loaded with purpose, the command block is verbose and may not be necessary for an AI agent, making it less concise. The parameter list is clear, but the overall length could be reduced without losing essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Considering the tool has 4 parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the purpose, use case (as step 14), destructive nature, confirmation requirement, and parameter details. It does not mention dependencies like prior audit steps or error handling, but is otherwise fairly complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description compensates for 0% schema description coverage by explaining all four parameters: user_email (admin email), sheet_id (Google Sheet ID), sheet_name (tab with default 'all_permissions'), and confirmed (must be True to execute, False for preview). This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's titles, though detailed formats or examples are missing.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'reapply' and the resource 'anyone (public) permissions' from an audit sheet. It distinguishes from sibling tools like reapply_domain_permissions and reapply_user_group_permissions by targeting the 'anyone' audience specifically.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a clear condition for use: when the audit captured 'anyone with the link' ACLs. It also warns about considering public access appropriateness and requires confirmed=True to execute. However, it does not explicitly compare to alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so description carries full burden. It discloses output to a Google Sheet and lists returned fields, but lacks mention of performance implications, rate limits, or authentication requirements (beyond user_email).
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is structured with purpose, context, args, and a GAM command. While the command is long, it's relevant. Minimal fluff; could be slightly more concise but acceptable for a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, output schema exists), the description provides enough context: it's step 6, writes to a sheet, and lists returned fields. Could mention prerequisites like GAM setup.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description has an 'Args:' section explaining each parameter, including defaults and usage in the GAM command. This adds significant meaning beyond schema titles.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it performs a full ACL audit listing every permission entry for files/folders under a source, and it's step 6 in a migration workflow. This differentiates it from sibling audit tools that filter (external, public, etc.).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It positions itself as 'Step 6' and 'master reference for reapplication steps', implying it runs after earlier steps and before reapplication. However, it does not explicitly list when to use vs alternative audit tools or provide exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry full transparency. It explains that files won't transfer and outputs to a sheet, but does not mention required permissions, side effects, or safety aspects beyond what is implicit.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is fairly detailed but structured: a clear purpose statement, explanation, parameter list, and GAM command example. It could be slightly more concise, but the structure aids understanding.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (4 params, migration context) and existence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's function, parameters, and usage context. It does not detail return values, but the output schema covers that.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but the description individually explains each parameter (user_email, folder_id, sheet_id, sheet_name) with context, adding meaning beyond the schema structure.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool audits files owned by others in a folder, with specific context about migration. It distinguishes from sibling tools like audit_owned_files by focusing on non-owned files.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates it is Step 5 in a migration process, implying a specific use case. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or comparisons to alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It details the GAM command and output, but does not explicitly state read-only nature, authentication requirements, or potential side effects. The admin email is noted, but no mention of destructive capability or rate limits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with a bold step number, explanation, Args list, and a GAM command. It is fairly concise considering the detail needed, though the command block adds length.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, usage, parameters, and workflow. It mentions the output tab and comparison with all_permissions, making it complete for a migration audit tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description enumerates all four parameters with their roles (admin email, destination drive, sheet ID, tab name) and includes the GAM command showing usage. It adds meaning beyond the schema, though format constraints are not specified.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly identifies the tool as a post-migration permissions audit on a Shared Drive. It specifies the step number and workflow context, which distinguishes it from siblings like audit_all_permissions by emphasizing its role as a final verification step.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states when to use it ('After reapplying permissions (steps 12–14)') and how it relates to sibling tools ('Compare this tab against the all_permissions tab'). It provides clear context but does not explicitly exclude other scenarios or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses destructive behavior, the requirement for confirmed=True, and that it reads from a Google Sheet and recreates ACLs including allowFileDiscovery. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden, and it effectively communicates the key behavioral traits.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is somewhat lengthy, including a full GAM command example. While important information is front-loaded (purpose, destructive note), the command block adds verbosity. It could be more concise without losing essential details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, destructive action), the description covers key aspects: purpose, destructive flag, preview capability, and parameter roles. It does not detail the output schema, but that is provided elsewhere. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to decide usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description's 'Args' section provides meaning for each parameter: user_email, sheet_id, sheet_name (with default), and confirmed (with behavior explanation). This adds significant value beyond the schema's bare properties.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Reapply domain-wide permissions from the audit sheet', specifying the verb 'reapply', the resource 'domain permissions', and the context 'from the audit sheet'. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'reapply_anyone_permissions' and 'reapply_user_group_permissions' by explicitly targeting domain permissions.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description notes that it is destructive and requires confirmed=True to execute, providing a preview when confirmed=False. It implies usage in a multi-step process (Step 13) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like reapply_anyone_permissions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully covers behavior: destructive action, confirmed flag, ownership limitation in Shared Drives, and silent ignoring of owner-role rows. The GAM command provides exact operation details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is verbose, including a full GAM command and argument list that could be condensed. The first sentence is clear, but subsequent text could be more succinct.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present and thorough behavioral transparency, the description addresses most agent needs. It could mention the specific role of being 'Step 12' in a larger process, but overall complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds some meaning for 'confirmed' (must be True) and 'sheet_name' (default value). However, 'user_email' and 'sheet_id' lack additional context beyond their names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reapplies user and group permissions from an audit sheet, differentiating it from sibling tools like reapply_anyone_permissions and reapply_domain_permissions by limiting to 'user' and 'group' types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explains it processes only user/group permission types and requires confirmed=True for execution, implicitly guiding when to use it. However, it lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct comparison to siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description discloses the preview behavior when confirmed=False, but does not mention authorization requirements, error states (e.g., if group exists), or any rate limits. With no annotations, the burden is higher, and missing details reduce transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is concise, with a clear header, parameter list, and GAM pattern. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is front-loaded and each sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given five parameters (three required), no enums, and an output schema, the description covers all parameter semantics, execution behavior (preview vs execute), and the underlying GAM pattern. It is complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All five parameters are described with purpose and defaults (who_can_post) or special behavior (confirmed). Schema coverage is 0%, so description fully compensates, adding meaning beyond raw parameter names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly states it creates a Google Group configured as a Collaborative Inbox, with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools (e.g., audit tools, run_gam_command) by focusing on this specific creation task.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Description explains the 'confirmed' parameter for execution vs preview, and lists GAM steps, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like run_gam_command or validate_gam_command. Context is clear but lacks exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that the tool updates the organizer field, adds destination as organizer-level attendee, and requires confirmed=true to execute (preview otherwise). Warns about Meet link breakage. No annotations to contradict.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Description is well-structured with purpose, note, warning, arguments list, and GAM pattern. No redundant sentences. Could be slightly more compact, but each section adds necessary context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Covers core functionality, warnings, and parameter semantics. Output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Adequate for a four-parameter tool with no complex nested objects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Adds value beyond schema: explains confirmed parameter behavior (must be true to execute, false returns preview). Schema has no descriptions, so this explanation is essential for correct invocation. Other parameters are clear from names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states the action (transfers) and resource (calendar event). Distinguishes from sibling tools which are audit, permission, and user management tools. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides context about API changes and the tool's approach. Includes a GAM pattern and a warning about Meet link breakage. Lacks explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but sufficient for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility. It discloses destructiveness, the requirement for confirmed=True, merging behavior, permission copying, and logging limitations. It lacks some details like rate limits or full conditions for user_email, but the disclosed information is substantial and adequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is well-structured with sections for purpose, destructive warning, notes, args, and a GAM command example. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence adds value. Front-loading the purpose and highlighting the destructive nature aids quick comprehension.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, behavior, parameters, and logging alternatives. It does not explicitly describe the output format, but the GAM command example includes 'summary'. Overall, it provides sufficient context for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides an 'Args' section explaining each parameter: user_email (must be Shared Drive Manager/Organizer), folder_id, shared_drive_id, and confirmed (False for preview). This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's bare property definitions.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Move the source folder tree to the Shared Drive.' It provides specific details about merging duplicate folders and overwriting older duplicate files, distinguishing it from sibling audit tools that precede it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly instructs to run all audit steps (1–10) before executing this step, indicating a clear prerequisite. It also notes the destructive nature and the need for confirmed=True. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the prerequisite implies proper usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses the tool returns targetId and targetMimeType via shortcutDetails, filters for shortcuts, excludes trashed items, and outputs to a Google Sheet. It fully explains behavioral traits without needing annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is front-loaded with the purpose and includes necessary context, arguments, and a GAM command. It is slightly lengthy but every sentence contributes value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The description covers purpose, parameters, behavior (output to sheet, fields returned), and usage context (migration step). With an output schema present, it sufficiently explains return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Each parameter is described in the Args section: user_email (owner of source folder), folder_id (ID of source folder), sheet_id (ID of Google Sheet), sheet_name (tab name, default). This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, compensating for 0% schema description coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'Identify Google Drive shortcuts' with a specific verb and resource. It explains the context of migration, making it distinct from sibling audit tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description places the tool in a migration workflow (Step 9) and explains why it's needed (shortcuts will break). It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
- Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden and succeeds: it discloses the effect (sets config flag, suppresses emails), shows the exact GAM command, and implies no destructive or read-only impact. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Four concise sentences that front-load the context ('Step 1') and purpose, then detail the effect and command. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter configuration tool with no annotations, the description fully explains why, when, what, and how. The output schema exists but is not needed for understanding this simple action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Zero parameters, so baseline 4. The description adds meaning by explaining the config change and its purpose, which complements the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description explicitly states it configures the 'todrive_noemail' flag to suppress emails during GAM todrive writes, tying it clearly to Step 1 of the migration workflow. It distinguishes this configuration step from the many audit/process sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Explicitly advises 'Run this ONCE before starting any audit steps,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. No alternatives or exclusions needed given its one-time setup nature.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
GitHub Badge
Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:
- Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
- Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
- Evaluate tool definition quality.
Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.
Card Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Score Badge
Copy to your README.md:
Latest Blog Posts
- Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)By Om-Shree-0709 on .mcpAgent IdentityOAuth 2.1
- Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an InternBy Om-Shree-0709 on .Agent IdentityMCP SecurityOAuth Delegation
- Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)By Om-Shree-0709 on .Agentic AiPrompt InjectionWebAssembly
MCP directory API
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ktibbs9417/gamcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server