google-workspace-mcp

drive_export

Export Google Workspace files to PDF, DOCX, CSV, XLSX, PPTX, or PNG by specifying the file ID and desired MIME type.

Instructions

Export a Google Workspace file to a format (PDF, DOCX, CSV, XLSX, PPTX, PNG, etc).

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>",
      "mime_type": "<mime_type>"
    },
    "name": "drive_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_id`	Yes
`mime_type`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the primary action and does not mention that the original file is left unmodified, required permissions/scopes, or the limitation that the file must be a native Google Workspace file. This is a significant transparency gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. Every word contributes to the core purpose, making it easy to parse and memorable.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values are defined elsewhere. For a simple 2-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and format options, but lacks parameter-specific instructions and usage constraints, making it only adequately complete.

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 the description must compensate. It provides human-readable format examples (PDF, DOCX, etc.) that hint at the mime_type parameter, but it does not explicitly map parameter names to their roles or specify actual MIME type syntax (e.g., 'application/pdf'). Partial guidance only.

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 explicitly states the action ('Export') and the target ('a Google Workspace file to a format'), and the format examples (PDF, DOCX, CSV, etc.) make the scope clear. This distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like drive_read_file or drive_copy_file.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when a file needs to be converted to a different format. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as when drive_read_file might be more appropriate for reading raw content.

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

Deploy Server