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 the prerequisite deployment requirement and the dev_mode behavior (latest vs deployed code), which are valuable. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what the execution entails (e.g., whether it's synchronous/asynchronous, timeout behavior).

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 upfront, followed by a prerequisite note, and then parameter explanations. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero wasted words, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool that executes arbitrary code (a complex operation), the description covers the core purpose, prerequisites, and parameters well. The presence of an output schema means return values don't need explanation. However, given the potential risks of code execution and no annotations, more behavioral context about safety, permissions, or execution limits would strengthen completeness.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 4 parameters: script_id ('The script project ID'), function_name ('Name of function to execute'), parameters ('Optional list of parameters to pass to the function'), and dev_mode ('If True, run latest code; if False, run deployed version'). This adds crucial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Execute a function in a deployed script') and identifies the resource (Apps Script functions). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like create_script_project_tool or get_script_content_tool by focusing on execution rather than creation or retrieval.

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 ('Requires the script to be deployed as "API Executable"') and references setup instructions. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools for similar operations.

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