gsuite

google-drive_get_file

Retrieve file metadata from Google Drive by file ID. Customize fields to get name, type, size, and timestamps.

Instructions

Get file metadata by ID

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": {
      "fileId": "<fileId>"
    },
    "name": "google-drive_get_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`fields`	No	Comma-separated list of fields to return (e.g., 'id,name,mimeType,size,parents,modifiedTime,createdTime,webViewLink'). For single items, use direct field names.
`fileId`	Yes	ID of the file to retrieve
`acknowledgeAbuse`	No	Whether to acknowledge virus scan warnings
`supportsAllDrives`	No	Whether to support files in shared drives

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.4.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only states the action without mentioning side effects, permissions, or read-only nature. Since it's a read operation, the description should clarify that no modifications occur.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. It is not verbose, but could be slightly expanded without losing clarity.

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?

Given the four parameters and no output schema, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain how to use optional parameters like 'fields' or 'acknowledgeAbuse', nor what the return value contains.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear meaning for each parameter. The description adds no additional semantics beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb ('get') and noun ('file metadata by ID'), making the tool's purpose distinct from siblings like google-drive_create_file or google-drive_list_files. However, it could be more precise about what 'metadata' includes.

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?

There is no indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., google-drive_search_files or google-drive_list_files). The description lacks context about prerequisites or limitations.

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