Execute a function in a Google Apps Script deployment via API to trigger actions with real external side effects, with explicit confirmation required.
Execute a function through an API-executable deployment. The function may cause real external side effects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | Yes | ||
| devMode | No | ||
| scriptId | Yes | ||
| parameters | No | ||
| functionName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already list destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it is 'through an API-executable deployment' and warns of 'real external side effects', reinforcing the destructive nature. It provides some context beyond the annotations but does not delve into specifics like potential irreversible changes or confirmation required.
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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the core action and warning. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices essential detail, making it under-specified rather than appropriately concise for a tool of this complexity.
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 destructive tool with five parameters, an output schema absent, and no parameter explanations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to address the required 'confirm' argument, what 'devMode' does, or how 'parameters' are passed. The agent cannot properly assess risk or construct a correct invocation.
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%, so the tool description must explain the meaning of the five parameters (scriptId, functionName, confirm, devMode, parameters). It does not mention any of them, leaving the agent to infer from the schema alone. This is a critical gap for a complex, destructive tool.
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 clearly states the action (execute), the resource (a function through an API-executable deployment), and warns of side effects. It is distinct from sibling tools that manage projects, deployments, or content, and no confusion is possible.
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?
The description implies this tool is for running existing functions via deployments, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites. The caution about side effects hints at careful use, but no exclusions or guidance on when not to use it are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.