team_drive_statusCheck Team Drive index coverage, active jobs, supported formats, and configured limits to confirm what is searchable before reading files.
Check index coverage, current jobs, supported formats and configured limits. Counts describe the last inventory, not guaranteed current business totals.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed world, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds a genuinely useful caveat that counts reflect the last inventory rather than live business totals, warning the agent against treating results as real-time. It could go further by saying what refreshes that inventory.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler, with the substantive capability list front-loaded and the staleness caveat following as a qualifier. Nothing in it restates the name or title redundantly.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't document return values, and with no parameters the input side is trivially complete. What remains slightly thin is how the reported inventory gets refreshed, which matters given the sibling team_drive_refresh.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly spends no space on inputs and focuses on what the call yields.
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?
The description names a specific verb (check) and enumerates the concrete things returned: index coverage, current jobs, supported formats, configured limits. That is far more informative than the title's tautology. It does not, however, distinguish itself from team_drive_job_status, which plausibly covers the 'current jobs' portion, leaving overlap unresolved.
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 list of reported items implies a health/diagnostics use case, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus team_drive_job_status or when to follow up with team_drive_refresh. Usage must be inferred from the reported fields rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.