Apps Script MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions listing deployments but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it returns all deployments or paginated results, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main action, and there's no wasted text, 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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple parameter (1 required), the description is somewhat complete but lacks behavioral context. It covers the basics but misses details like pagination, error handling, or relation to other tools, which could help an AI agent use it more effectively in context.

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 includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'script_id' and its purpose, adding meaning beyond the input schema (which has 0% description coverage). However, it doesn't provide details like format examples (e.g., if it's a numeric ID or string) or constraints, so it only partially compensates 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 verb ('List') and resource ('deployments for a script project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_script_projects_tool' or 'list_versions_tool' in terms of scope or hierarchy, 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention if this is for active deployments only, or how it relates to 'create_deployment_tool' or 'delete_deployment_tool'. The description only states what it does, not when it's appropriate.

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