Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
google-workspace-mcp

google-workspace-mcp

by smk-labs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

drive_file_rename

Rename a Google Drive file in a chosen account by providing its file ID and new name, enabling title updates without altering file contents.

Instructions

Rename a 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_id": "<file_id>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "drive_file_rename"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
accountYes
file_idYes
new_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.2

TDQS

D1.5/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations exist, and the description provides zero behavioral details. It does not disclose side effects, permissions, or whether renaming affects file location or metadata.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is technically concise but fails to convey necessary information. For a tool with multiple parameters and siblings, significant under-specification outweighs brevity.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a complex sibling set, the description is entirely insufficient. It omits return values, error conditions, and practical usage context.

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?

Input schema has 3 required parameters with 0% description coverage. The description adds no meaning to account, file_id, or new_name, leaving agents without crucial formatting or context hints.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description 'Rename a file.' is a tautology that adds no value beyond the tool name. It provides a verb and resource but is minimal and does not distinguish from siblings like drive_file_move or drive_file_share.

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 compared to alternatives. Given siblings like drive_file_move or drive_file_trash, agents need context to decide which to invoke.

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