google-workspace-mcp

drive_copy_file

Copy a Google Drive file to a new folder or with a new name. Specify the source file ID and optionally set a new name or target folder.

Instructions

Copy a file in Google Drive.

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": {
      "file_id": "<file_id>"
    },
    "name": "drive_copy_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`file_id`	Yes
`folder_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Copy a file,' without detailing whether this creates a new copy, the role of optional name/folder_id, side effects, or return value. This is minimal but not entirely missing, as the action 'copy' implies duplication.

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?

The description is a single, short sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and perfectly concise for the simple action it describes.

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?

The tool has three parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, yet the description is extremely sparse. Given the complexity, the description is not complete enough: it fails to explain parameter semantics, usage context, or expected behavior. The output schema may cover return values, but the description still leaves significant gaps.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The description adds no meaning beyond the input schema. With 0% schema description coverage, the agent has no idea what 'name' or 'folder_id' actually do. The description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters at all.

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?

The description uses a specific verb 'Copy' with a clear resource 'a file in Google Drive.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like drive_read_file, drive_create_file, or drive_share_file by specifying the copy action. The purpose is immediately clear and unambiguous.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it duplicates a file, explain how it relates to drive_move or drive_create, or provide any exclusions or prerequisites. This leaves the agent without context for selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server