google-workspace-mcp

drive_trash

Move a Google Drive file to the trash using its file ID. Keep your Drive organized by removing files you no longer need.

Instructions

Move a file to the trash.

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_trash"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`file_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses the core behavior ('move to trash') but nothing beyond that. With no annotations, it does not mention reversibility, permissions, or side effects. However, the action itself is transparent, and the sibling drive_untrash implies recoverability.

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, concise sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and destination. Every word earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple single-parameter operation, the description provides the essential action. However, it lacks any contextual guidance about when to use trash versus other file operations, and it does not mention the output schema (though that is provided separately).

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?

The schema provides only the file_id parameter with no description, and the tool description does not elaborate on it. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate but does not explain the parameter's format, scope, or requirements, leaving the agent to infer from the name.

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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Move') and resource ('a file'), and the destination 'trash' distinguishes it from sibling tools like drive_untrash. It directly answers what the tool does.

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 guidance on when to use this tool, nor any exclusions or alternatives mentioned. The description only states what it does, not when to prefer it over other file operations, so the agent gets no contextual help.

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

Deploy Server