Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
drive-mcp

drive-mcp

by reisbel
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

update_file_metadata

Rename, move, describe, or star a Google Drive file by updating only the metadata fields you supply; moving replaces the current parent folder.

Instructions

WRITES. Rename, move, describe or star a file. Only the fields passed are changed. Moving replaces the current parent 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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>"
    },
    "name": "update_file_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
fileIdYes
starredNo
descriptionNo
moveToFolderIdNoDestination folder id. "root" is My Drive.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two important behaviors beyond the schema: partial-update semantics ('Only the fields passed are changed') and move semantics ('Moving replaces the current parent folder'). It still omits permission requirements, reversibility, and error behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the mutation warning 'WRITES.' and with every sentence contributing a distinct fact. Zero filler.

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 a 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 20% schema coverage, the description covers the mutation and partial-update profile but omits permissions, failure modes, and the return shape. Adequate minimum, but clear gaps remain.

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 only 20%, so the description must compensate. It maps operations onto the fields (name/description/starred/moveToFolderId), but adds no format or constraint detail (e.g., fileId format, folder-not-file validation for moveToFolderId), leaving the mapping implicit.

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?

Names a specific verb (WRITES) plus the exact resource and the four operations it performs: rename, move, describe, star. This cleanly distinguishes it from sibling tools like update_file_content and get_file_metadata.

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 listed operations imply when the tool is useful, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no pointer to alternatives such as update_file_content or share_file. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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