connector_google_drive_fetchFetch a single Google Drive resource by its native ID to access specific files or folders within NAVIG.
Fetch a single resource from Google Drive by its ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resource_id | Yes | Native resource ID to fetch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description frames this as a plain read ('Fetch a single resource'), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, i.e. a state-mutating, potentially destructive operation. Nothing in the description explains or acknowledges this, so an agent relying on the text would misjudge the safety profile of the call.
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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should say what comes back, yet it never defines what a 'resource' is (file, folder, permission, revision) or the shape/limits of the response. Combined with the unexplained conflict between 'fetch' and the destructive annotation, an agent lacks what it needs to call this safely.
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 there is a single required parameter already documented as 'Native resource ID to fetch'. The description's 'by its ID' adds no syntax, format, or caveat beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch'), a specific resource ('a single resource from Google Drive'), and its scoping key ('by its ID'), which is enough to separate it from the sibling connector_google_drive_search. It stops short of naming that sibling explicitly, but the single-vs-search distinction is inferable.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'by its ID' implicitly tells the agent this is the retrieval step that follows a search, but no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative tool is named. Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.