Unified Apps Script MCP

apps_script_create_deployment

Deploy an immutable Apps Script deployment from a specific version using a manifest entry point. Provide script ID, version number, and optional description.

Instructions

Deploy an immutable version with a manifest entry point.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "scriptId": "<scriptId>",
      "versionNumber": "<versionNumber>"
    },
    "name": "apps_script_create_deployment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`scriptId`	Yes
`description`	No
`versionNumber`	Yes
`manifestFileName`	No	appsscript

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already indicate a non-readOnly, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds a small behavioral detail—'immutable version' and 'manifest entry point'—but does not disclose side effects such as creating a deployment resource or requiring an existing version. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single compact sentence with no filler and the key action is front-loaded. It is slightly under-specified, but as far as conciseness itself, it wastes no words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating operation with no output schema and no schema-level parameter descriptions, the definition is too thin: it omits preconditions (an existing version), what the returned deployment looks like, and how this deployment relates to the script. Sibling deployment tools make that context important.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should explain the parameters; it only loosely hints at versionNumber via 'immutable version' and manifestFileName via 'manifest entry point'. scriptId and description are left entirely unexplained, which is a significant gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ('Deploy') and identifies the artifact as an immutable version with a manifest entry point, making the operation recognizable. It does not explicitly mention 'deployment' or differentiate from create_version, but the intent is clear from the tool name and the action.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus create_version, update_deployment, list_deployments, or the prerequisite that a version must already exist. The description only states the action, leaving the agent to infer context from sibling names.

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