Google Workspace MCP Server - Control Gmail, Calendar, Docs, Sheets, Slides, Chat, Forms & Drive

Create Drive File

create_drive_file

Create files in Google Drive from text, base64, or a URL. Save content to any folder or shared drive without converting to Google Docs, Sheets, or Slides.

Instructions

Creates a new file in Google Drive, supporting creation within shared drives. Accepts direct text content, inline base64 bytes, or a fileUrl to fetch content from. This stores the supplied bytes without converting them to Google Docs, Sheets, or Slides. Use the matching import_to_google_* tool for Google-native conversion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`content`	No	If provided, the content to write to the file.
`fileUrl`	No	If provided, fetches the file content from this URL. Supports file://, http://, and https:// protocols.
`file_name`	Yes	The name for the new file.
`folder_id`	No	The ID of the parent folder. Defaults to 'root'. For shared drives, this must be a folder ID within the shared drive.	root
`mime_type`	No	The MIME type of the file. Defaults to 'text/plain'.	text/plain
`base64_sha256`	No	Expected SHA-256 of decoded base64_content. Recommended for binary payload integrity checks.
`base64_content`	No	Standard base64-encoded file bytes.
`content_mime_type`	No	MIME type for base64_content uploads.
`user_google_email`	Yes	The user's Google email address. Required.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.25.2Aug 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / base64_sha256

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Expected SHA-256 of decoded base64_content. Recommended for binary payload integrity checks."
+}

Addedv1.0.1Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a mutating, non-idempotent operation. The description adds valuable behavior beyond that: it stores the exact bytes without converting formats, and it may fetch content from a URL. It does not discuss failure modes, size limits, or parameter precedence, but the core behavioral traits are well disclosed.

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?

Three efficient sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and scope, followed by input modes and the key non-conversion caveat plus routing to the sibling tool. No wasted words.

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?

Given the rich 100%-covered schema and an output schema, the description provides enough high-level context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and boundaries. A minor gap is that it does not specify what happens if multiple content sources (content, base64_content, fileUrl) are provided simultaneously.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description groups content parameters into three modes ('direct text content, inline base64 bytes, or a fileUrl') but mostly restates what the schema already documents. It adds little parameter-specific detail beyond that conceptual grouping.

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 names a specific verb ('Creates') and resource ('a new file in Google Drive'), and adds clarifying scope: creation within shared drives and non-conversion to Google-native formats. It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling import_to_google_* and Google-native creation tools.

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 explicitly states that for Google-native conversion the agent should use the matching import_to_google_* tool, giving a clear when-not-to-use signal. It does not, however, give guidance on how to choose among the three content input methods (text, base64, fileUrl) for different scenarios.

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

Deploy Server