Unified Apps Script MCP

apps_script_get_content

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the full content of an Apps Script project from its HEAD or a specified version, enabling code review and version comparisons.

Instructions

Read HEAD or an immutable version of all Apps Script project files.

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>"
    },
    "name": "apps_script_get_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scriptId`	Yes
`versionNumber`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description adds the concept of HEAD vs immutable version, reinforcing the read-only behavior. It does not describe error cases or version handling beyond the schema, but does not contradict annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, resource, and version distinction efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a two-parameter read tool with strong annotations, the description covers the core purpose, but omits what the returned content looks like (since there is no output schema) and does not explicitly state how the optional versionNumber behaves when omitted. This is a minor but noticeable gap.

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 must carry the parameter meaning. It implies versionNumber picks a version, but never explicitly describes scriptId or that versionNumber is optional. This is insufficient compensation for the lack of schema descriptions.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('all Apps Script project files'), and distinguishes HEAD from immutable versions, which separates it from sibling tools like apps_script_get_project (metadata) and apps_script_get_version (version details). The scope is unambiguous.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like apps_script_get_project or apps_script_get_version. The description implies it is for file content retrieval, but it does not state exclusions or remind the agent to use a version-specific tool if only metadata is needed.

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