Retrieve a Google Drive file by fileId as text or base64, or save it to a local path by providing savePath.
Download a file by its Drive fileId. Returns text content for text files, or base64 for binary. Provide savePath to write it to disk instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fileId | Yes | Drive file ID | |
| savePath | No | Optional absolute path to save the file to |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait: the return format is text for text files and base64 for binary, or written to disk when savePath is given. However, it says nothing about auth/permission requirements, file-size limits, or error behavior, leaving notable gaps for a file-access tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core operation plus the return-format behavior are front-loaded. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of explaining return values (text vs base64, or disk write), so an agent knows what to expect. It is nearly complete for a simple 2-param tool, missing only permission and failure-mode context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that supplying savePath changes the operation's outcome (writes to disk instead of returning content). That is real added value over the schema's terse 'Optional absolute path' note.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb (Download) and resource (a file by its Drive fileId), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search and list tools. It stops short of naming those siblings or their conditions, so a 5 isn't warranted, but the operation is unambiguous.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Usage is implied by the verb and the mention of savePath as a variant mode of operation, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or reference to search/list as alternatives. An agent can infer the right context, but nothing is spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.