fastmcp-gsuite

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_drive_files

List files in Google Drive based on search query, with adjustable limit and sort order. Requires the user's email address.

Instructions

List files in the user's Google Drive with optional filtering by search query.

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": {
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_drive_files"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user_id`	Yes	The EMAIL of the Google account. Choose from:
`query`	No	Drive search query (e.g., 'name contains "report"', 'mimeType="application/pdf"')
`limit`	No	Maximum number of files (1-1000, default 100)
`order_by`	No	Sort order (e.g., 'name', 'modifiedTime desc') - default is 'modifiedTime desc'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and description lacks behavioral details such as default behavior, permissions, rate limits, or response format. Only states basic listing functionality.

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?

Single sentence, 14 words, front-loaded with essential action and resource. No wasted words.

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?

Adequate for a simple listing tool but lacks details on pagination, ordering defaults, and return structure. No output schema, so description should compensate, but it does not.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. Description does not add meaningful information beyond what is in the schema, such as explaining interaction between parameters.

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?

Clear verb 'list', specific resource 'files in user's Google Drive', and mentions optional filtering. Distinguishes from sibling tools like list_drive_folders and get_drive_file.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_drive_folders or search tools. Optional filtering is mentioned but no exclusions or context provided.

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