Google Workspace MCP

drive_export

Read-only

Extract the inside of Google Docs, Sheets, and Slides as text in multiple formats. Retrieve actual content when file metadata is not enough.

Instructions

Read the CONTENT of a Google Doc, Sheet or Slide as text. drive_get_file returns metadata only, so this is the one to use when you need what is inside.

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>"
    },
    "name": "drive_export"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fileId`	Yes
`mimeType`	No	text/plain, text/markdown, text/csv or application/pdf	text/plain

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true annotations already covering safety, the description adds useful context: it returns actual content rather than metadata and supports Docs, Sheets, and Slides. It does not discuss conversion caveats or output formatting, but the annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence quickly routes an agent away from the wrong sibling tool. Every word carries useful signal.

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 2-parameter, read-only export tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, when to use it, and what to pass. The main gap is that mimeType can be application/pdf, which is not fully captured by the 'as text' phrasing, but the schema documentation fills this in.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 50%: mimeType is described in the schema, but fileId is not. The description compensates by indicating that fileId refers to a Google Doc, Sheet, or Slide. Combined with the schema's mimeType values, agent can understand both parameters well enough to call the tool.

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 ('Read') and identifies the resource ('CONTENT of a Google Doc, Sheet or Slide') and the output form ('as text'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling drive_get_file by noting that the sibling returns metadata only.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly tells an agent when to use this tool ('when you need what is inside') and names the alternative (drive_get_file) that should be used for metadata. This gives clear decision guidance with no need to infer.

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