Skip to main content
Glama
nabheet

google-services-mcp

by nabheet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Create/upload Drive file

google_drive_upload

Upload files to Google Drive by name and MIME type. Include text content or a local file path to create documents, images, or other files in a specified folder.

Instructions

Create a file in Drive, optionally with text content (blank Google-native file if omitted) or by local file path (binary-safe).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesFile name.
pathNoLocal file path to upload (reads raw bytes from disk; use instead of content).
accountNoAccount nickname to use.
contentNoText content to upload.
mimeTypeYesMIME type (e.g. text/plain, image/png, application/vnd.google-apps.document).
parentFolderIdNoParent folder ID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.1.60
    • changedInput schema / properties / mimeType / description
      Previous value: -"MIME type (e.g. text/plain, application/vnd.google-apps.document)."New value: +"MIME type (e.g. text/plain, image/png, application/vnd.google-apps.document)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / path
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Local file path to upload (reads raw bytes from disk; use instead of content).",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.30
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  3. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: omitting content yields a blank Google-native file, and the path route reads raw bytes ('binary-safe'). It says nothing about write permissions/scope, overwrite or duplicate-name behavior, what is returned (e.g. file ID for later use), or how parentFolderId affects placement, which are material for a mutation tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence covering the primary action and both optional modes, with no filler. It is dense and slightly parenthetical, but every clause earns its place by distinguishing the two upload paths.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 6-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core modes adequately but leaves gaps: it does not explain the account parameter's role, how parentFolderId interacts with default placement, whether the call requires a specific OAuth scope, or what identifier the agent gets back to use with google_drive_get/update/share.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics the schema does not: the consequence of omitting content (blank Google-native file) and the binary-safe nature of the path route versus the text-only content route. It does not explain account nicknames or the meaning of parentFolderId beyond the schema's own text.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a file in Drive') and clarifies the two creation modes, which separates it from google_drive_create_folder, google_docs_create, and google_sheets_create. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so an agent must still infer which of the Drive/Docs/Sheets creators to pick.

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?

The sentence implies the two usage modes (text content vs. local path) and when each applies ('binary-safe', 'blank Google-native file if omitted'), which is genuine guidance for parameter choice. However, it gives no when-to-use context relative to the many sibling creation tools (Docs/Sheets/Slides creators, create_folder) and no prerequisites such as account or parent folder selection.

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