Open a specified Google Drive section and list its first items, with an optional limit; set limit to 0 to open the section without listing.
Open a Drive section and list its first items.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to list (0 = just open). | |
| section | No | home (Suggested), files (My Drive), shared (Shared with me), starred, recent, offline, trash, uploads, workspaces, spam, computers (if the app shows it). | files |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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 not disclose that opening a section likely changes the current Drive location (a state mutation), nor whether this is a UI-driving action versus a query, nor any permission or pagination behavior. Only 'first items' hints at truncation.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized for its content, though the brevity reflects missing information rather than deliberate compression.
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 annotations and no output schema, the description must explain return shape, state effects, and interaction with drive_list/drive_cd — it explains none of these. An agent cannot predict whether calling it changes subsequent drive_list results or whether items are returned in an output payload or rendered in the UI.
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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are well documented, including the section enumeration and the limit=0 special case. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a concrete verb pair and resource: 'Open a Drive section and list its first items.' An agent can tell this is a navigation-plus-preview operation, though it is not explicitly distinguished from drive_list or drive_cd, which read similarly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as drive_list (list current contents) or drive_cd (navigate without listing). Given the dense Drive sibling family, the agent gets no routing signal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.