Unified Apps Script MCP

drive_list_apps_script_projects

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Google Apps Script project files stored in Drive to find scripts the Apps Script API cannot enumerate.

Instructions

Discover Apps Script project files in Google Drive; unlike Apps Script API, Drive can list projects.

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": "drive_list_apps_script_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 25, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the implementation detail that this uses Drive and that the Drive route has the unique ability to list projects, but it says nothing about pagination behavior, query semantics, or the shape of results.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loads the primary action and resource, and adds a useful distinguishing contrast without redundancy. Every part contributes.

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 read-only list-style operation with no required parameters and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no mention of how query/maxPages/pageSize affect behavior, an agent lacks enough detail to predict what a call returns or how far it pages.

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% for the three parameters, so the description should explain what query, maxPages, and pageSize mean. It does not mention any of them; the term 'Discover' only weakly implies that query is a search filter, leaving the agent to infer the Drive search syntax and paging behavior.

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?

The description states a clear verb ('Discover') and a well-defined resource ('Apps Script project files in Google Drive'), and the second clause contrasts it with the Apps Script API, which differentiates it from the many apps_script_* sibling tools. An agent can tell this tool is for Drive-based listing rather than API-based operations.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'Unlike Apps Script API, Drive can list projects' explicitly points to the condition for choosing this tool: when listing projects is needed, the Apps Script API-based path is unsuitable. It does not name a specific sibling tool or spell out a when-not-to-use case, so it falls just short of a 5.

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