Retrieve a specific Apps Script deployment by providing its script ID and deployment ID. Use this tool to inspect deployment details and configurations.
Get one Apps Script deployment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scriptId | Yes | ||
| deploymentId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only nature is established. The description adds no extra behavioral detail (e.g., auth, response shape), but it does not contradict the annotations.
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 one short sentence with no filler, and the core operation is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple getter, though it sacrifices useful context.
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 with two required string parameters and strong read-only annotations, this is close to minimally viable. However, without an output schema the description does not clarify what the deployment object contains, and there is no mention of when to select this over sibling deployment tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention scriptId or deploymentId or clarify how to obtain/fill them. The parameter names are self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1, but the description fails to compensate for the missing schema descriptions.
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 identifies a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one Apps Script deployment'), which is clear enough to distinguish from create/update/delete and from list_deployments. It does not explicitly name the alternatives, so it stops short of the strongest sibling differentiation.
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?
No guidance is given for when to use this tool versus apps_script_list_deployments, get_project, get_version, or other siblings. 'Get one' implies a single deployment lookup, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or alternative recommendation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.