Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
drive-mcp

drive-mcp

by reisbel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

create_folder

Create a Google Drive folder to organize files; set an optional parent or default to My Drive root.

Instructions

WRITES. Create a folder.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
parentIdNoDefault My Drive root.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The "WRITES." tag correctly flags this as a mutation, but nothing is said about required permissions, whether the operation fails on duplicate names, what happens to the parent, or any rate/side-effect behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is short and front-loads the mutation flag, which is good. But two fragments this terse tip into under-specification rather than earning their brevity, leaving key behavior unstated.

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?

For a write tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain the parent/location semantics and any failure conditions. Instead it stops at four words, leaving the agent under-informed relative to the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 50%: parentId is documented as defaulting to My Drive root, but name has no description. The tool description adds no meaning for either parameter, so it fails to compensate for the uncovered half.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a folder"), which clearly separates it from sibling mutation tools like create_file and upload_file. However it gives no scope or differentiation detail beyond the verb+noun, so it does not reach the top of the scale.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. parent folder existence), and no routing to alternatives. The agent must infer everything from the bare imperative.

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