Google Workspace MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

manage_drive_access

Manage Google Drive file and folder access by granting, batch-granting, updating, revoking permissions, and transferring ownership in a single action.

Instructions

Consolidated tool for managing Google Drive file and folder access permissions.

Supports granting, batch-granting, updating, revoking permissions, and transferring file ownership -- all through a single entry point.

Args: user_google_email (str): The user's Google email address. Required. file_id (str): The ID of the file or folder. Required. action (str): The access management action to perform. Required. One of: - "grant": Share with a single user, group, domain, or anyone. - "grant_batch": Share with multiple recipients in one call. - "update": Modify an existing permission (role or expiration). - "revoke": Remove an existing permission. - "transfer_owner": Transfer file ownership to another user. share_with (Optional[str]): Email address (user/group), domain name (domain), or omit for 'anyone'. Used by "grant". role (Optional[str]): Permission role -- 'reader', 'commenter', or 'writer'. Used by "grant" (defaults to 'reader') and "update". share_type (str): Type of sharing -- 'user', 'group', 'domain', or 'anyone'. Used by "grant". Defaults to 'user'. permission_id (Optional[str]): The permission ID to modify or remove. Required for "update" and "revoke" actions. recipients (Optional[List[Dict[str, Any]]]): List of recipient objects for "grant_batch". Each should have: email (str), role (str, optional), share_type (str, optional), expiration_time (str, optional). For domain shares use 'domain' field instead of 'email'. send_notification (bool): Whether to send notification emails. Defaults to True. Used by "grant" and "grant_batch". email_message (Optional[str]): Custom notification email message. Used by "grant" and "grant_batch". expiration_time (Optional[str]): Expiration in RFC 3339 format (e.g., "2025-01-15T00:00:00Z"). Used by "grant" and "update". allow_file_discovery (Optional[bool]): For 'domain'/'anyone' shares, whether the file appears in search. Used by "grant". new_owner_email (Optional[str]): Email of the new owner. Required for "transfer_owner". move_to_new_owners_root (bool): Move file to the new owner's My Drive root. Defaults to False. Used by "transfer_owner".

Returns: str: Confirmation with details of the permission change applied.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`role`	No
`action`	Yes
`file_id`	Yes
`recipients`	No
`share_type`	No	user
`share_with`	No
`email_message`	No
`permission_id`	No
`expiration_time`	No
`new_owner_email`	No
`send_notification`	No
`user_google_email`	Yes
`allow_file_discovery`	No
`move_to_new_owners_root`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.14.3Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses several behavior-relevant details: send_notification defaults to True, allow_file_discovery affects search visibility, move_to_new_owners_root defaults to False, and permission_id is required for update/revoke. However, with no annotations provided, it does not state higher-level side effects of destructive actions like revoke or transfer_owner (e.g., immediate removal of access, possible loss of ownership), nor does it mention authentication or error behavior.

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 long but justified by the tool's complexity (14 parameters, 5 actions, 0% schema coverage). It opens with a one-sentence summary, uses a clean labeled Args list, and groups parameter relevance per action. There is no filler; every line earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the high parameter count, absent annotations, and empty schema descriptions, the description provides a complete picture: action-specific required parameters are clearly marked, defaults are stated, return type is defined as a str confirmation, and nested object structure for recipients is explained. An agent has enough context to construct valid calls for all five actions.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description fully compensates: every one of the 14 parameters is defined with type, required/optional status, defaults, and the actions that use it. It even provides an example RFC 3339 format and the expected structure for the recipients list, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

Description opens with 'Consolidated tool for managing Google Drive file and folder access permissions,' clearly stating the verb and resource. It then enumerates five specific actions (grant, grant_batch, update, revoke, transfer_owner), making it unambiguous what the tool does and how it differs from simple 'set permission' siblings.

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 action list doubles as usage guidance, with each action explicitly described ('Share with a single user, group, domain, or anyone', 'Share with multiple recipients in one call', etc.), so an agent can select the right action. However, it does not explicitly contrast this consolidated tool with sibling tools like set_drive_file_permissions, or state conditions where that sibling should be preferred.

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

Deploy Server