Google-Drive-MCP-Server

by pghoya2956

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.5.2
Disambiguation3/5
Most tools are distinct, but gdrive_read_file and gdrive_read_large_file overlap significantly as both read file contents, differentiated only by size thresholds. Additionally, gsheets_read and gdrive_read_file both handle Google Sheets, which could cause an agent to misselect. Descriptions help, but boundaries are not crisp.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming pattern is mostly consistent: resources (gdrive/gsheets) prefixed to verb_noun (e.g., gdrive_search, gsheets_read). However, gdrive_folder_structure is a noun phrase instead of a verb-based name, and gsheets_read lacks the explicit '_file' or '_sheet' suffix seen elsewhere, causing minor deviations.
Tool Count5/5
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a Google Drive server covering search, read, and spreadsheet operations. It is within the ideal 3-15 range and each tool addresses a plausible use case without excessive bloat.
Completeness2/5
The domain appears to be Google Drive file management, but the toolset only supports search, read, folder structure, and a single spreadsheet cell update. Missing critical operations like file upload, delete, update/move, and more advanced spreadsheet writes create significant gaps that would force agents to hit dead ends.
Average 3.7/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
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
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
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.json to 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether 'generateThumbnail' has side effects like creating or modifying files, or what authentication or permission requirements exist. The description is a single sentence that only paraphrases the tool's purpose.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and resource. It contains no redundant wording or unnecessary details, making it appropriately concise and front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description omits critical context such as return value format, default behavior of optional parameters, whether any data is modified, and potential side effects. This leaves an agent with insufficient information to fully anticipate the tool's behavior, especially for a tool with several configurable options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
All 4 parameters are fully described in the input schema, giving 100% schema coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter context, but the high coverage justifies a baseline score of 3. It does not explain how parameters like includeHistogram or generateThumbnail influence the output, but the schema already details their basic meaning.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses the specific verb 'analyze' and identifies the resource as 'image files from Google Drive', with the added scope of 'metadata and preview generation.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like gdrive_read_file, gdrive_search, or gsheets_update_cell, which serve different purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that gdrive_read_file should be used for raw file content or that gdrive_search is for locating files, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the tool's name and basic purpose.
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?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only states 'search' without explaining whether it is read-only, what scope it covers, or how results are returned. It does not mention pagination, authentication, or limitations, so the agent lacks critical context.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded and immediately communicates the core action, earning full marks for conciseness and structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite having an input schema with good parameter detail, the tool lacks an output schema and annotations. The description does not clarify return values, query syntax, or potential edge cases, making it incomplete for an agent to use correctly without external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Search for files in Google Drive' clearly states the verb (search) and the resource (files in Google Drive), distinguishing it from sibling tools like gdrive_read_file and gsheets_read. It is specific and unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as gdrive_folder_structure or gdrive_read_large_file. It does not mention exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It simply says 'display' and provides no information about side effects, performance implications, authorization requirements, or whether it is read-only. The description does not contradict annotations (since none exist), but it is too terse to convey important 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.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. Every part—subject, verb, and output format—is meaningful and directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
The tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema. The description explains the output as a 'tree format' but does not elaborate on the actual return type (e.g., JSON, string), error behavior, or depth/item limits. While the schema covers parameter details, the missing output schema places a burden on the description to explain return values, which it only partially does.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema provides descriptions for all four optional parameters (folderId, maxDepth, maxItems, includeFiles), resulting in 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function: 'Display the entire folder structure of Google Drive in a tree format.' It uses a specific verb ('display'), identifies the resource ('folder structure'), and specifies the output format ('tree format'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that search/read files or update sheets.
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 description implies the tool's use case (displaying folder hierarchy) but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or mention exclusions. No mention of alternatives like gdrive_search, but the purpose is clear enough that an agent could infer when to invoke it.
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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not mention that the operation overwrites the existing cell value, does not describe permissions/authentication requirements, and does not indicate what is returned after the update.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence states the core purpose without filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The tool is simple with fully documented parameters, but the description lacks behavioral details (e.g., overwrite behavior, return value) and usage alternatives. It is minimally adequate, but the absence of annotations and output schema leaves gaps for an agent assessing side effects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions (fileId, range, value), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the term 'cell value,' which is the baseline expected when schema fully documents parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly identifies the action ('Update') and resource ('a cell value in a Google Spreadsheet'), which is specific and distinct from sibling tools like gsheets_read. It communicates exactly what operation is performed.
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 description implies usage when the goal is to modify a spreadsheet cell, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over gsheets_read or other siblings, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions.
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 present, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It does mention the native-only constraint and flexible range selection, but it omits details like return format, pagination, error handling, or confirmation that this is a read-only operation. The disclosure is partial, not rich.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with front-loaded purpose and a clear alternative. Every clause earns its place, and the wording is tight with no redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple 3-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description provides enough context for selection and basic usage: scoping constraints, range flexibility, and alternative for non-native files. The lack of return format details is a minor gap but does not undermine completeness for this straightforward read tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema covers all parameters with detailed descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter documentation burden. The description adds little beyond restating 'flexible range selection' and mentioning 'formatting options' which do not map to a schema property. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Read data from Google Sheets') and the specific resource (native Google Sheets documents). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly excluding Excel/CSV files and pointing to gdrive_read_file, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'native Google Sheets only, not Excel/CSV files uploaded to Drive' and names the alternative tool for Excel files ('use gdrive_read_file instead'). This is clear and actionable for tool selection.
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 carries the full burden. It discloses supported file types and automatic conversion behavior, and flags a size limitation. It does not mention return format or error cases, but for a read operation it offers substantial behavioral context beyond the bare name.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by supported formats and an explicit alternative. Every sentence contributes value with no redundancy.
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?
The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the caller gets back. It implies text/structured data but does not specify return format (e.g., raw text, JSON, binary). It also does not mention behavior for unsupported file types. This leaves a notable gap for a read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has one parameter (fileId) with description 'ID of the file to read' and 100% schema coverage. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description opens with 'Read file contents from Google Drive' which is a specific verb+resource. It further differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly naming gdrive_read_large_file for large files and outlining supported formats (PDF, Excel, Google Docs/Sheets).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance and an alternative: 'For very large files (>20MB) or partial reading, use gdrive_read_large_file instead.' This gives a clear exclusion criterion and names the alternative tool.
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 provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions streaming support, byte-range capabilities, and file-type limitations. While it doesn't describe return format or auth requirements, these are less critical for a read operation and the core behaviors are sufficiently transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by usage guidance and exclusions. Every sentence contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.
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?
Given no output schema, the description should explain return behavior. It does not state what the tool returns (e.g., raw bytes, stream, or decoded text). While usage and limitations are covered, the missing return-value explanation creates a gap for an AI agent invoking the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% with descriptive text for each parameter. The description adds context about streaming and byte ranges but does not provide additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already defines. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool reads large files (>20MB) from Google Drive with streaming and byte-range support. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool gdrive_read_file by explicitly referencing size limits and partial reading.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for partial file reading or when gdrive_read_file fails due to size limits.' Also states exclusions: 'Not suitable for Google Docs/Sheets or files requiring text extraction.' This clearly delineates usage vs alternatives.
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:

[![Google-Drive-MCP-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pghoya2956/Google-Drive-MCP-Server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pghoya2956/Google-Drive-MCP-Server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Google-Drive-MCP-Server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pghoya2956/Google-Drive-MCP-Server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/pghoya2956/Google-Drive-MCP-Server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/pghoya2956/Google-Drive-MCP-Server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server