Re-syncs the current Google Drive list from the server and returns refreshed items so agents can see file changes. Set a limit to control returned items.
Pull-to-refresh the current Drive list (re-sync from the server) and list it again.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return (0 = don't list). |
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 must carry behavioral burden. It discloses the key trait that this re-syncs from the server (a network round-trip) and re-lists, and the limit param's '0 = don't list' adds a useful side-effect toggle. It does not state that it is a non-destructive read or describe failure behavior when offline.
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 compact sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted words. Slightly more could be said to contrast with drive_list, but it is tight and readable.
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?
For a one-parameter, no-output-schema refresh tool, the description is essentially complete: it explains what happens (server re-sync) and the optional listing side effect. Nothing critical for correct invocation is missing.
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 limit parameter and its '0 = don't list' semantics are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, which is the expected baseline when the schema fully documents the single parameter.
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 specific action (re-sync from the server) on a specific resource (the current Drive list) and notes it lists again afterward. It is distinguishable from drive_list, though the 'and list it again' clause partly blurs the boundary rather than cleanly contrasting them.
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?
The word 'current' implies it operates on the active folder context and is used to refresh an already-open list, which hints at when to use it. However, it does not explicitly tell the agent to prefer drive_list for a fresh navigation versus drive_refresh for re-syncing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.