Skip to main content
Glama
r28ai

recruiting-ops-mcp

by r28ai
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

gdrive_permissions_create

Create a Google Drive permission to grant file or shared drive access to a user, group, domain, or anyone with a specified role.

Instructions

Create a permission for a file or shared drive. type is user, group, domain or anyone; role is owner, organizer, fileOrganizer, writer, commenter or reader. For user or group, send emailAddress. Concurrent permission writes on the same file are not supported.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileIdYesThe ID of the file or shared drive.
permissionYesThe permission to create.
emailMessageNoA plain text custom message to include in the notification email.
supportsAllDrivesNoWhether the requesting application supports both My Drives and shared drives.
transferOwnershipNoWhether to transfer ownership to the specified user and downgrade the current owner to a writer. This parameter is required as an acknowledgement of the side effect. For more information, see Transfer file ownership.
moveToNewOwnersRootNoThis parameter only takes effect if the item isn't in a shared drive and the request is attempting to transfer the ownership of the item. If set to `true`, the item is moved to the new owner's My Drive root folder and all prior parents removed. If set to `false`, parents aren't changed.
useDomainAdminAccessNoIssue the request as a domain administrator. If set to `true`, and if the following additional conditions are met, the requester is granted access: (1) The file ID parameter refers to a shared drive. (2) The requester is an administrator of the domain to which the shared drive belongs. For more information, see Manage shared drives as domain administrators.
sendNotificationEmailNoWhether to send a notification email when sharing to users or groups. This defaults to `true` for users and groups, and is not allowed for other requests. It must not be disabled for ownership transfers.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, a minimal profile for a mutation tool. The description adds one genuinely valuable behavioral fact – concurrent writes on the same file are unsupported – but it does not disclose notification-email side effects, the ownership-transfer side effect, or permission-scope requirements, so it only partly fulfills the disclosure burden.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by the constraint-critical facts. Slight redundancy with the schema's own enum listings keeps it from being maximally efficient.

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 an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the core grant semantics and one concurrency caveat but says nothing about what the call returns (the created Permission resource) or about the high-impact optional flags that live only in the schema. It is usable but not fully self-sufficient.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description repeats the type and role enums and the emailAddress rule, all of which the schema already documents verbatim, and it adds no meaning for the other six parameters (transferOwnership, sendNotificationEmail, useDomainAdminAccess, etc.).

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a permission for a file or shared drive') and no sibling tool overlaps with permission management, so ambiguity is nil. The follow-on sentences make clear it is about granting a role on a Drive item rather than creating the item itself.

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?

Usage is implied by the create semantics and the field-combination rules (emailAddress for user/group, role/type pairings), but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus a sibling or what prerequisites/auth are needed. Adequate but leaves the agent to infer context.

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