Apps Script MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the basic action ('Get details') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a read operation in a Google Scripts context, this lacks critical context like authentication needs or data sensitivity.

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, followed by a structured 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value, with no wasted words. A 5 would require even tighter phrasing or bullet points for optimal scanning.

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 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, error cases) to be fully complete for safe agent use.

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 description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'script_id: The script project ID' and 'version_number: The version number to retrieve (1, 2, 3, etc.)'. This adds clear meaning beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't cover format details (e.g., ID structure) or constraints beyond examples.

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 details of a specific version.' This specifies the verb ('Get details') and resource ('a specific version'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_versions_tool' or 'get_script_project_tool,' which would require a 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 doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_versions_tool' (for listing versions) or 'get_script_project_tool' (for project-level details), nor does it specify prerequisites or contextual constraints. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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