fastmcp-gsuite

by tumf

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Remote

rename_drive_folder

Rename a Google Drive folder by providing the folder ID and a new name for a specific user account.

Instructions

Rename a folder in Google Drive.

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>",
      "folder_id": "<folder_id>",
      "new_name": "<new_name>"
    },
    "name": "rename_drive_folder"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`user_id`	Yes	The EMAIL of the Google account. Choose from:
`folder_id`	Yes	ID of the folder to rename.
`new_name`	Yes	New name for the folder.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description only states 'rename', implying modification without detailing permissions, effects (e.g., whether child items are affected), or irreversibility. Minimal behavioral disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence with no fluff, but it omits essential details. While concise, it sacrifices completeness, resulting in an average score.

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

Completeness2/5

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

No output schema, no annotations, and no return value explanation. For a mutation tool with three required parameters, the description fails to cover permissions, error handling, or confirmation of success.

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%, with all parameters described. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action 'Rename' and the resource 'a folder in Google Drive'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like rename_drive_file (file vs folder) and move_drive_folder (rename vs move).

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. For example, it doesn't specify that it only works for folders, not files, or mention prerequisites like folder ownership.

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