Retrieve details for a specific Gemini File Search store using its resource name. Use this tool to inspect store configuration and metadata within your RAG setup.
Get details of a specific Gemini File Search store by its resource name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| store_name | Yes | Store resource name, e.g. "fileSearchStores/abc123" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. The description adds no extra behavior such as what happens for a missing/nonexistent store name or what the response contains, so it is only minimally additive.
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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. Nothing can be trimmed without losing the identifying-key detail.
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?
For a single-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient; absent an output schema it need not explain return values. Only the lack of any sibling/usage routing keeps it from a 5.
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 the single store_name parameter is documented in the schema with the 'fileSearchStores/abc123' format example. The description's mention of 'resource name' adds no meaning beyond that, 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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('Gemini File Search store') plus the identifying key ('by its resource name'), so an agent knows exactly which entity is fetched. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling gemini_list_stores, which keeps it short of a 5.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this versus gemini_list_stores (retrieve many) or the other store/detail siblings, and no prerequisites or error conditions are mentioned. Usage is only weakly inferable from the phrase 'a specific store'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.