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. It clarifies that versions are 'immutable snapshots,' indicating read-only behavior, and mentions how they're created, which adds useful context. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions that would be important for a list operation.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by explanatory context and parameter details. Every sentence adds value: the first states what it does, the second explains versions, the third tells when they're created, and the Args section clarifies the parameter. No wasted words.

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 (1 parameter), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, parameter, and context of versions. The output schema will handle return values, so the description doesn't need to cover those. However, it could benefit from more behavioral details given the lack of 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 includes an 'Args' section that explains the single parameter ('script_id: The script project ID'), adding meaning beyond the schema's 0% coverage. This fully compensates for the lack of schema descriptions, making the parameter purpose clear. The baseline would be lower without this, but the explicit parameter explanation earns a high score.

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 specific action ('List all versions') and resource ('of a script project'), with additional context about what versions are ('immutable snapshots of your script code'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_version_tool (singular) and create_version_tool, making the scope explicit.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by explaining when versions are created ('when you deploy or explicitly create a version'), which helps the agent understand the tool's purpose. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, though the distinction from get_version_tool is implied.

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