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 retrieves metadata, implying a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what specific metadata is returned (e.g., sheet properties beyond names). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first followed by parameter details. It avoids unnecessary words, though the parameter descriptions could be more informative. The structure is clear, but it could benefit from better organization or bullet points for readability.

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 that there is an output schema (which handles return values), the description does not need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and two parameters, the description lacks details on authentication, error cases, and parameter semantics. It provides a basic overview but misses key contextual elements for a tool in this environment.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description adds minimal semantics by listing the parameters ('user_google_email' and 'spreadsheet_id') and briefly describing them, but it does not explain format requirements (e.g., email validation, ID structure) or usage context. This partially compensates for the schema gap but is insufficient for full clarity.

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 metadata about a spreadsheet including all sheet names and properties.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('spreadsheet'), and scope ('metadata'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'get_sheet_values_tool' or 'list_spreadsheets_tool', which is why it scores 4 instead of 5.

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 does not mention sibling tools like 'get_sheet_values_tool' (for data) or 'list_spreadsheets_tool' (for listing), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. This lack of context leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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