google_drive_listList Google Drive files newest first, optionally filtered by a Drive query, with page-size and page-token controls to retrieve additional results.
List files in Drive, newest first, with an optional query.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Drive query (e.g. 'name contains "report"'). | |
| account | No | Account nickname to use. | |
| pageSize | No | Max files (default 25). | |
| pageToken | No | Page token from a previous result's nextPageToken. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.95Input schema / properties / pageTokenAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Page token from a previous result's nextPageToken.",
+ "type": "string"
+}v0.1.30Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the default sort order ('newest first') — genuine behavioral context. It omits what a result contains, how pagination behaves beyond the schema's own pageToken/pageSize fields, and what happens with no query (full listing, presumably). Useful but incomplete for an unannotated tool.
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?
One short sentence with the resource and the default ordering front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.
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?
A 4-parameter listing tool with no annotations and no output schema leaves the agent guessing at what a returned file record looks like and how to page through large result sets. The schema covers parameter syntax well, but the description does nothing to fill the behavioral and return-shape gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter is documented there, including the query example, account nickname, page size default, and page token usage. The description adds only that the query is optional, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ('List files in Drive') plus a default ordering ('newest first'), which is enough to distinguish it from google_drive_get, google_drive_export, and the many write-side Drive siblings. It stops short of naming a specific alternative, but the operation is unambiguous.
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?
It says what the tool does but never when to choose it over google_drive_get (single file) or google_drive_export (export to another format). There are no prerequisites, no exclusions, and no mention of how a query narrows results versus listing everything.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.