Gmail Multi-Inbox MCP Server

update_drive_file

Update a Google Drive file: rename it, move between folders, star or unstar, and modify its description.

Instructions

Update a Drive file — rename it, move it between folders, star/unstar, or update its description.

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_drive_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New file name.
`account`	Yes	Account id.
`file_id`	Yes	Google Drive file ID.
`starred`	No	Star or unstar the file.
`add_parents`	No	Comma-separated folder IDs to add as parents (moves file).
`description`	No	New file description.
`remove_parents`	No	Comma-separated folder IDs to remove from parents.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.6.2Aug 14, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not mention side effects like whether moving via add_parents also needs remove_parents, whether updates are reversible, or if special permissions are required.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's function. No fluff or irrelevant information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description is adequate for a straightforward update tool with a fully-described schema, but it omits potential interaction details (e.g., behavior when both add_parents and remove_parents are provided) and does not mention output or side effects. Given the complexity of 7 parameters, more context would be beneficial.

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 baseline is 3. The description groups parameters into operations (rename, move, star, description), adding light semantics, but does not reveal additional nuance beyond the schema's property descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool updates a Drive file and enumerates specific operations (rename, move, star/unstar, description). This distinguishes it from siblings like upload, get, or trash, which have different verbs.

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 is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_drive_file or share_drive_file. The description implies its use case but does not state exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema's required fields.

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

Deploy Server