Unified Apps Script MCP

apps_script_list_processes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Filter and list Apps Script executions for the authenticated user to monitor script runs and troubleshoot issues.

Instructions

List the authenticated user's Apps Script executions with filters.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "apps_script_list_processes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`maxPages`	No
`pageSize`	No
`userProcessFilter`	No

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the authenticated-user scope, which is useful context, but does not disclose pagination, rate limits, or what data is returned. Since annotations carry the safety burden, a 3 is appropriate.

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?

One short sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it may be too terse given the need for parameter and sibling differentiation, but for its length it is well-structured.

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?

The description is too minimal for a tool with three undocumented parameters and a potentially overlapping sibling. It does not explain return format, pagination, or what 'filters' refers to. Annotations cover safety, but the description does not provide enough operational context to use the tool correctly.

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%, and the description only says 'with filters' without naming any parameter. It does not explain maxPages, pageSize, or userProcessFilter, leaving the agent with no additional meaning beyond the raw schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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?

States a clear verb and resource: 'List the authenticated user's Apps Script executions'. The scope is explicit. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling apps_script_list_script_processes, which likely targets a specific script's executions, leaving the distinction to inference.

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 on when to use this tool versus the sibling list_script_processes or other tools. The description does not mention alternatives, exclusions, or conditions that would select this tool.

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