Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gws-mcp

gws-mcp

by samuel-stidham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

drive_update

Move, rename, or trash Google Drive files and folders with per-file status reports.

Instructions

Move (parent_id), rename (name), or trash (trashed) files and folders; reports per file.

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": {
      "account": "<account>",
      "file_ids": "<file_ids>"
    },
    "name": "drive_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNo
accountYes
trashedNo
file_idsYes
parent_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that multiple operations can be performed in one call and that output reports per file. However, it does not mention required permissions, atomicity, error handling, or rate limits.

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?

One sentence with all key information front-loaded. No redundancy or filler. Every word adds value.

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 5 parameters, 2 required, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain required parameters (account, file_ids) or the output structure. For a multi-action tool with sibling context, more information would be beneficial.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It explains three parameters (parent_id, name, trashed) but fails to describe the required parameters (account, file_ids). Account is an enum but not clarified. Partial 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?

Description clearly states three specific actions (move, rename, trash) and maps each to a parameter (parent_id, name, trashed). It also indicates per-file reporting. This distinguishes it from siblings like drive_search or drive_get.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, if a user wants to trash a file, they might not know whether to use this or a hypothetical other tool. No exclusions or preconditions are mentioned.

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