Apps Script MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns analytics data, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't explicitly confirm if it's safe or has side effects. It also doesn't mention any constraints like authentication requirements, rate limits, or data freshness, which are critical for a metrics tool. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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?

The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second explains the return data, and the 'Args' section clearly documents parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant information, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, return data, and parameter semantics. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it lacks behavioral context like safety or constraints, which would enhance completeness for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'script_id' is for a script project ID and 'metrics_granularity' controls the time granularity with allowed values 'DAILY' or 'WEEKLY', including the default. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, making the parameters clear and actionable.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get execution metrics for a script project' with specific analytics data listed. It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('execution metrics for a script project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_script_project_tool' or 'list_script_projects_tool', which focus on different aspects of script projects.

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 description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing an existing script project, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_script_project_tool' (which retrieves project details) or 'list_script_projects_tool' (which lists projects). The absence of usage context leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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