Apps Script MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It mentions 'accessible to the user' which hints at permission-based filtering, but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'all calendars' includes (e.g., primary vs. secondary). For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Both sentences earn their place, though the Args formatting could be more integrated. No redundant or verbose language is present.

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 low complexity (single parameter, read-only list operation) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and incomplete behavioral disclosure, it leaves gaps in understanding error handling and operational constraints.

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%, but the description includes an Args section that documents the single parameter 'user_google_email' with a brief explanation. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify format requirements (e.g., must be a valid Google email) or authentication implications. Baseline 3 is appropriate as it compensates somewhat for the schema gap.

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 action ('List all calendars') and resource ('accessible to the user'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools like list_drive_items_tool or list_spreadsheets_tool, which prevents a perfect score.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites (like authentication), comparison to other calendar-related tools, or typical use cases. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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