gworkspace-mcp

by LeooNic

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Python

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists. For example, send_email and send_html_email could be confused, and drive_copy/drive_move have similar file manipulation functions. However, clear descriptions help differentiate them.
Naming Consistency5/5
Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun conventions. Drive tools use drive_ prefix, script tools use script_ prefix, sheets tools use sheets_ prefix, and email/trigger/workspace tools follow similar patterns. No mixing of conventions.
Tool Count2/5
31 tools is excessive for a single MCP server. While the domain (Google Workspace automation) is broad, this feels like multiple servers combined. A more focused scope with 15-20 tools would be more manageable for agents.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface provides comprehensive coverage for Google Workspace automation. It includes full CRUD operations for Drive files, Sheets manipulation, Apps Script development, email sending, and trigger management. The workspace_connect tool provides excellent discovery capabilities.
Average 3.1/5 across 31 of 31 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It states the tool sends emails but doesn't mention delivery guarantees, rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what happens with invalid addresses. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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 extremely concise at just 8 words, front-loading the core purpose immediately. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
For an email-sending tool with 5 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but with an output schema, the description is insufficient. While the output schema may document return values, the description doesn't address critical aspects like delivery behavior, error handling, or parameter usage. Given the mutation nature and complexity, more context is needed.
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 all 5 parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description only mentions 'optional plain-text fallback' which corresponds to one parameter (plain_fallback), leaving the other 4 parameters (to, subject, html_body, cc) completely unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the schema's lack of 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?
The description clearly states the action ('Send an HTML email') and resource ('email'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling 'send_email' by specifying HTML format with plain-text fallback, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'send_email_preview'.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_email' or 'send_email_preview'. The description mentions optional plain-text fallback but doesn't explain when this feature should be used or what distinguishes this tool from its siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Append rows') but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what the output might contain. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 extremely concise—a single sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, which is ideal for brevity.
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?
Given the complexity (a mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain parameter semantics, behavioral traits, or usage context. While an output schema exists, the description doesn't provide enough guidance for effective tool selection and invocation.
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 compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'rows' and 'sheet' but doesn't clarify the meaning of 'spreadsheet', 'range', or 'values' parameters beyond what's implied. This adds minimal value over the bare schema, failing to address the coverage gap.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Append') and resource ('rows to the end of a sheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sheets_write' or 'sheets_add_table', which might also modify sheet content, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'sheets_write' (which might overwrite vs. append) or 'sheets_add_table', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage, leaving the agent without direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'protects' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether protection is reversible, what happens to existing protections, or error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and clarifies the conditional behavior for range_a1. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately concise.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 5 parameters), no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on permissions, side effects, and parameter usage, though the presence of an output schema mitigates some need to explain return values.
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 compensate. It only explains the semantics of range_a1 (None protects entire sheet), leaving other parameters like spreadsheet, sheet_name, description, and warning_only undocumented. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('protect') and target ('a sheet or range'), specifying that without range_a1 it protects the entire sheet. It distinguishes from siblings like sheets_read or sheets_write by focusing on protection, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sheets_format or sheets_add_validation for related tasks, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only explains the default behavior when range_a1 is None.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'Move[s] a file,' implying a mutation operation, but fails to disclose critical traits: whether it requires specific permissions, if the move is permanent or reversible, potential rate limits, or what happens to the original file location. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, clear sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's action and target. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (a mutation operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on behavioral traits and parameter semantics, making it incomplete for safe and effective use by an AI agent in a real-world context.
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?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'file' and 'folder' but does not clarify the semantics of 'file_url' and 'dest_folder_id,' such as their expected formats (e.g., URLs, IDs), sources, or constraints. This leaves key parameter details undocumented, failing to add meaningful value beyond the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Move') and resource ('a file'), specifying the target ('to a different folder'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'drive_copy' by focusing on relocation rather than duplication. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, such as 'drive_search' or 'script_*' tools, which is why it's not a perfect 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'drive_copy' for copying files or other drive-related tools. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing file and folder IDs, or exclusions, like not moving files across different drives if applicable. This minimal guidance limits its utility for an AI agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the action is additive ('Adds', 'Appends') which implies mutation but doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, error handling, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
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?
Two short sentences with zero waste: 'Add a new function to an existing file. Appends at the end.' Every word adds value, and it's front-loaded with the core purpose. Highly efficient for its content.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns) but no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks parameter details, usage context, and behavioral traits needed for a mutation tool. Adequate as a minimal description but with clear gaps.
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 compensate. It doesn't explain any parameters (script_id, file_name, source) beyond what the schema provides. No details on format, constraints, or examples are given, leaving parameters largely undocumented despite the tool having 3 required parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Add a new function') and target ('to an existing file'), with the specific behavior 'Appends at the end.' It distinguishes from siblings like script_edit_function (edits existing) and script_create_file (creates new files). However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource type (script/function) which siblings clarify.
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 alternatives like script_edit_function for modifying existing functions or script_create_file for creating new files. The description implies usage for adding functions to existing files but doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or comparison with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a file, implying a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required, whether it overwrites existing files, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain return values. However, as a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and three parameters, it should provide more context on behavior and parameters. The description is minimal but covers the basic action, leaving gaps in usage and semantics.
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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions creating a '.gs file' but doesn't explain the three parameters (script_id, file_name, source), such as what script_id refers to, file naming conventions, or the purpose of the source parameter. It adds minimal value beyond the schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('new .gs file in the script project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'script_update_file' or 'script_get_file', which would require mentioning that this is for initial creation rather than modification or retrieval.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing script project), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'script_update_file' for editing or 'script_add_function' for adding code snippets, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves source code but does not mention permissions, rate limits, error handling, or output format. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves in practice.
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 a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, earning full marks for conciseness.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose adequately. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior and parameters, making it only minimally complete.
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?
The schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters 'script_id' and 'file_name' are undocumented. The description adds minimal context by implying these are needed to identify a file in a script project, but it does not explain what these parameters represent (e.g., format, examples), failing to compensate for the schema gap.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('full source code of a file in the script project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'script_get_function' or 'script_update_file', which prevents a perfect score.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'script_get_function' for retrieving functions or 'script_list_functions' for listing. The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions, offering minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers limited behavioral insight. It mentions validation types and DROPDOWN-specific behavior (values as list), but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether this overwrites existing validation, requires edit permissions, has rate limits, or returns confirmation. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its effects.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose. Both sentences are functional: the first establishes the tool's scope, and the second provides essential parameter guidance. There's no redundant or verbose language, though it could be more structured (e.g., bullet points for validation types).
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers validation types and a key parameter nuance, yet omits behavioral context, prerequisites, and error handling. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but overall context for safe and effective use is insufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It explains validation_type options (DROPDOWN, CHECKBOX, NUMBER, DATE) and clarifies that 'values' should be a list for DROPDOWN, adding meaning beyond the schema's generic types. However, it doesn't address other parameters (spreadsheet, sheet_name, range_a1) or detail format requirements (e.g., A1 notation), leaving half the parameters semantically unclear.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Add data validation') and specifies the resource (spreadsheet cells via validation types). It distinguishes from siblings like sheets_format or sheets_conditional_format by focusing on validation rules rather than formatting or protection. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the spreadsheet context beyond the tool name, which slightly reduces specificity.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., spreadsheet must exist), compare to similar tools (e.g., sheets_protect for cell locking), or specify use cases (e.g., data entry forms). The only implicit usage hint is for DROPDOWN validation, but overall guidance is minimal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions rule types and an example for CUSTOM_FORMULA, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate disclosure of behavioral traits.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by rule details. Both sentences add value: the first states the action, the second clarifies parameter usage. No wasted words, though it could be more structured for readability.
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?
Given 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage, an output schema exists, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It covers some parameter semantics but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema helps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the lack of annotations and low schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only partially does. It explains rule_type values and condition_value for CUSTOM_FORMULA, covering 2 of 6 parameters. Other parameters like spreadsheet, sheet_name, range_a1, and bg_color remain undocumented, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Add conditional formatting') and resource (spreadsheets), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from siblings like sheets_format or sheets_add_validation by specifying conditional formatting, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The verb+resource combination is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sheets_format for general formatting or sheets_add_validation for data validation. The description lists rule types but doesn't explain context or prerequisites, leaving usage unclear relative to sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Copy') but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, whether it overwrites existing sheets, or how errors are handled. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior beyond the basic action.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to grasp quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to describe return values) but no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action but lacks details on permissions, error handling, or parameter usage. For a mutation tool with three parameters, this leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent use.
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 schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'a sheet from one spreadsheet to another', which implies parameters for source, sheet, and destination, but doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., IDs, names, URLs) or their formats. This adds minimal semantic value beyond what can be inferred from the tool name.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Copy') and the resource ('a sheet from one spreadsheet to another'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'drive_copy' or 'sheets_read', which would require more specific context about what makes this tool unique.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'drive_copy' or 'sheets_read'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether both spreadsheets must exist or have proper permissions, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios where this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions color format (hex codes) and horizontal alignment options. It omits critical behavioral details: whether this is a destructive mutation, required permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what the output schema returns. For a 10-parameter mutation tool, this is insufficient.
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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part contributes directly to tool understanding, making it efficient despite its brevity.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (10 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations) and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address behavioral aspects, most parameter meanings, or how it differs from siblings, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but only adds minimal context for bg_color, fg_color, and h_align parameters. It doesn't explain the purpose of spreadsheet, sheet_name, range_a1, or other formatting parameters like bold, italic, font_size, and number_format, leaving most parameters undocumented.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Format') and resource ('a range'), specifying it applies formatting to spreadsheet ranges. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling formatting tools like sheets_conditional_format, which suggests it's for direct formatting rather than rule-based formatting.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like sheets_conditional_format or sheets_protect. The description lacks context about prerequisites, appropriate use cases, or limitations, leaving the agent without usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads values, implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'read' entails (e.g., returns raw or formatted data). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 3 parameters.
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 extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every phrase ('Read values from a sheet', 'Pass spreadsheet URL or ID') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and basic usage.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is incomplete. It covers the core action but lacks behavioral context and parameter details. The output schema mitigates some gaps by defining return values, but overall it's only minimally adequate.
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 compensate. It mentions 'spreadsheet' (URL or ID) and implies 'range' through 'Read values from a sheet', but doesn't explain the 'render' parameter or provide syntax examples. This adds minimal value beyond the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Read values') and resource ('from a sheet'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other sheet-related siblings like 'sheets_describe' or 'sheets_write', missing explicit differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'sheets_describe' for metadata or 'sheets_write' for modifications, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions writing values but fails to address critical aspects like permissions needed, whether it overwrites existing data, error handling, or rate limits. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool.
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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it may be overly brief for completeness.
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?
Given the tool's complexity as a write operation with 3 parameters and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, parameters, and usage context. However, the presence of an output schema slightly mitigates the need to explain return values, but overall, it's insufficient for safe and effective use.
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 compensate. It only explains 'values' as a '2D array', adding minimal meaning beyond the schema's type definition. Parameters 'spreadsheet' and 'range' are undocumented, leaving their semantics unclear and failing to adequately cover the input requirements.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('Write') and resource ('sheet range'), specifying what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'sheets_append' or 'sheets_format', which might have overlapping functionality, so it misses full differentiation.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'sheets_append' for adding rows or 'sheets_format' for styling. The description lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or typical use cases, leaving the agent with minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the deployment requirement but lacks details on permissions needed, potential side effects (e.g., whether execution is idempotent or destructive), rate limits, error handling, or what the execution entails (e.g., synchronous/asynchronous). For a tool that executes code, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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?
The description is brief and front-loaded with the core action, consisting of two concise sentences. There is no unnecessary information, and it efficiently communicates the essential purpose and prerequisite. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the prerequisite into a distinct note for clarity.
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?
Given the complexity of executing a script function (which involves code execution and potential side effects), the description is incomplete. No annotations are provided to cover safety or behavioral traits, and while an output schema exists (which might explain return values), the description doesn't address critical aspects like error cases, execution context, or dependencies. It meets a minimum baseline but has clear gaps for this tool type.
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%, meaning none of the parameters (script_id, function_name, parameters) are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter names—it doesn't explain what a script_id is, how to format function_name, or what parameters should contain (e.g., array of arguments). This fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving parameters largely unexplained.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Execute a function') and resource ('in a deployed script'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like script_add_function or script_get_function by focusing on execution rather than creation or retrieval. However, it doesn't specify what kind of function or script (e.g., JavaScript, Python), leaving some ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides a prerequisite ('Requires API Executable deployment'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like script_list_functions (for discovery) or script_get_function (for inspection), nor does it mention when not to use it (e.g., for undeployed scripts). The guidance is implied but not comprehensive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only mentions the return values (ID and URL). It doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as permissions needed, whether it preserves metadata, rate limits, or error conditions, leaving significant gaps for a mutation tool.
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 front-loaded and efficient with two concise sentences: one stating the action and resource, and another specifying returns. Every word earns its place without redundancy.
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?
Given a mutation tool with no annotations, 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and returns but lacks details on usage, parameters, and behavioral context, making it incomplete for safe operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate but adds no parameter details. It doesn't explain what 'source', 'new_name', or 'folder_id' represent (e.g., file IDs, naming rules, folder destinations). Baseline is 3 due to the gap, as it fails to provide meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Copy') and resource ('Drive file') with examples of file types, and specifies the return values. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'drive_move' or 'sheets_copy_sheet', which would require a 5.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'drive_move' (for moving instead of copying) or 'sheets_copy_sheet' (for copying within spreadsheets). The description lacks context about prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool creates a spreadsheet and returns ID and URL, which implies a write operation, but lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, whether it overwrites existing files, or error handling. For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to guide safe and effective use.
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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the action and return values. It's front-loaded with the core purpose ('Create a new Google Spreadsheet') and avoids any unnecessary details, making it efficient and easy to parse for an AI agent.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (creation operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema (which handles return value documentation), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and output but lacks behavioral context, parameter explanations, and usage guidelines, leaving gaps that could hinder effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the input schema provides. With 0% schema description coverage, the schema only defines 'name' (required string) and 'folder_id' (optional string/null), but the description doesn't explain what these mean (e.g., 'name' as the spreadsheet title, 'folder_id' for Google Drive location). However, since there are only 2 parameters and an output schema exists, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't actively mislead.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Create a new Google Spreadsheet') and resource ('Google Spreadsheet'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sheets_add_table' or 'script_create_file', which might also create spreadsheet-related resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Google Drive access), compare to similar tools like 'sheets_add_table' for adding tables to existing spreadsheets, or specify use cases (e.g., creating from scratch vs. templates). This leaves the agent with minimal context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it mentions 'Uses Drive query syntax' and provides examples, it doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how results are returned (pagination beyond page_size), rate limits, or error conditions. The examples help but don't constitute comprehensive behavioral transparency.
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 extremely concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by syntax guidance and concrete examples. Every sentence earns its place, with no wasted words, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (search with query syntax), no annotations, and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose and query format but lacks behavioral context, usage guidance, and complete parameter semantics. The output schema reduces the burden, but significant gaps remain.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but only partially succeeds. It clarifies that the 'query' parameter uses 'Drive query syntax' and provides examples, which adds meaningful context beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't address the 'page_size' parameter at all, leaving half the parameters without semantic explanation. This partial compensation earns a baseline score.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('Drive files'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this search tool from other Drive-related siblings like 'drive_copy' or 'drive_move', which would require a 5.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (including other Drive operations and Sheets/script tools), there's no mention of when this search is appropriate versus other file access methods or what specific scenarios it addresses.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Delete' which implies a destructive mutation, but doesn't specify if this is permanent, requires specific permissions, has side effects (e.g., breaking references), or provides confirmation. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in safety and operational context.
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 a single, direct sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the key action ('Delete') and resource, making it immediately scannable and efficient. Every word earns its place by conveying the core purpose without redundancy or fluff.
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?
Given a destructive tool with 2 parameters (0% schema coverage) and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks critical context like behavioral traits, usage guidelines, and parameter details. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but the description doesn't fully compensate for the absence of annotations and low schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'a function' and 'the script project', which loosely maps to 'function_name' and 'script_id', but doesn't explain what these parameters represent (e.g., script_id as a project identifier, function_name as the target). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names, meeting the baseline for low coverage.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a function from the script project'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'script_edit_function' or 'script_get_function' by specifying deletion rather than modification or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'script_list_functions' for listing or 'script_add_function' for addition, which slightly limits differentiation.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing function), exclusions (e.g., not for deleting files), or recommend other tools like 'script_list_functions' to check before deletion. With siblings like 'script_edit_function' and 'script_get_function', this lack of context leaves the agent to infer usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the tool modifies source code (implying mutation) and has a scoping constraint ('Only that function is modified'), but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or what the output contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every phrase ('Replace a specific function's source code', 'Only that function is modified') directly contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and scope.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic action and scope but lacks crucial details for a mutation tool, such as behavioral traits or parameter guidance, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It implies parameters for identifying the function and providing new source code, mapping to the three parameters, but doesn't explain their formats, constraints, or relationships. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema's property names.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Replace') and target ('a specific function's source code'), distinguishing it from siblings like script_add_function or script_delete_function. However, it doesn't explicitly mention the resource type (script) or differentiate from script_update_file, which might also modify code.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like script_update_file or script_add_function. It mentions 'Only that function is modified' but doesn't clarify prerequisites, error conditions, or sibling tool comparisons.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('Get') but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, how errors are handled (e.g., invalid function names), or the format of the returned source code. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that retrieves data.
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 a single, clear sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part earns its place by directly conveying the tool's function, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.
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?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it lacks details on behavior, error handling, and parameter context, leaving room for improvement in guiding the agent effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description mentions 'by name', which hints at the 'function_name' parameter, but doesn't explain 'script_id' or provide any details beyond what the schema indicates. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value; it compensates slightly by implying the purpose of one parameter, but not enough to elevate the score above baseline.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and resource ('source code of a specific function by name'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'script_get_file' or 'script_list_functions', but the specificity of 'function' versus 'file' or 'list' provides some implicit distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'script_get_file' (for full files) or 'script_list_functions' (for listing functions). It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid script_id, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists functions with metadata (file, signature, line numbers), which implies a read-only operation, but does not cover critical aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or pagination behavior. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('List all functions') and details the returned attributes. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which should detail return values), the description does not need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations, 1 parameter of unclear semantics, and moderate complexity (listing functions in a script), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the core purpose but lacks context on usage, behavior, and parameters, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 1 parameter (script_id) with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic details. The description does not explain what 'script_id' represents (e.g., a project ID, file ID, or how to obtain it), so it adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema. With low coverage and no compensation, the baseline is 3 as the description at least implies a script project context.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all functions in a script project with their file, signature, and line numbers.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('functions in a script project'), and scope ('all'), but does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like 'script_get_function' or 'script_describe' (if present). This makes it clear but not fully sibling-distinctive.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid script_id), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'script_get_function' (for a single function) or 'script_get_file' (for file contents). Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly framed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool replaces file content, implying a destructive write operation, but doesn't mention critical aspects like permissions required, whether changes are reversible, error handling for missing files, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for safe agent usage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic action but misses details on parameters, behavioral traits, and usage context. The output schema mitigates some gaps, but overall, it's only minimally adequate for a destructive operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% description coverage, so parameters are undocumented in structured fields. The description doesn't add any semantic details about 'script_id', 'file_name', or 'source' beyond what the schema names imply. Since schema coverage is low, the description fails to compensate, resulting in minimal added value.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Replace the entire content') and resource ('a file in the script project'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'script_edit_function' or 'script_create_file', which might have overlapping use cases.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'script_create_file' for new files or 'script_edit_function' for partial edits. It lacks context about prerequisites, like whether the file must exist, or exclusions, such as not being suitable for non-text files.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool sends email via Gmail but provides no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when emails fail to send. For a mutation tool with significant real-world impact, this lack of behavioral context is a substantial gap.
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 extremely concise with just two sentences that each provide valuable information. The first sentence establishes the core purpose, while the second offers specific parameter guidance. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 6 parameters (3 required), and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description lacks crucial information about authentication, error handling, and when to use versus sibling tools. It provides basic functionality but misses important operational context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 6 parameters, the description adds some value by explaining that 'cc/bcc are comma-separated email addresses' and mentioning 'html=True for HTML body'. However, it doesn't explain the purpose or format of 'to', 'subject', or 'body' parameters, leaving significant gaps in parameter understanding.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Send an email') and resource ('via Gmail'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'send_email_preview' and 'send_html_email' by being the primary email sending function, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with these alternatives in the description text itself.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'send_email_preview' or 'send_html_email'. While it mentions setting 'html=True for HTML body', this is parameter guidance rather than usage context. There's no information about prerequisites, appropriate scenarios, or when other tools might be better suited.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions creation and conversion but lacks critical behavioral details: whether this operation is idempotent, what happens if the range overlaps existing tables, permission requirements, error conditions, or rate limits. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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?
The description is appropriately sized with two sentences. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the second adds useful detail about features. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points for features).
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?
Given 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is moderately complete. It covers the 'what' but lacks details on 'how' (parameters, behavior) and 'when' (guidelines). The output schema reduces need to explain returns, but the mutation nature and parameter gaps make this incomplete for safe use.
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 compensate. It mentions 'data range' (hinting at range_a1) but doesn't explain any parameters: spreadsheet (ID or URL?), sheet_name (case-sensitive?), range_a1 (format examples?), name (optional table name purpose). The description adds minimal value beyond the bare schema, failing to address the coverage gap.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Create a Google Sheets Table'), specifies the exact feature ('structured table feature, Ctrl+Alt+T'), and distinguishes it from generic spreadsheet operations by mentioning conversion of data ranges with specific formatting features (headers, banding, filtering). This is precise and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_write or sheets_append.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., existing spreadsheet/sheet), compare to similar tools (e.g., sheets_write for unstructured data), or specify scenarios where table creation is appropriate versus other formatting options. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover permissions needed, rate limits, response format, or error handling. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.
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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get full structure of a spreadsheet') and lists key components (sheets, named ranges, protected ranges). There is no wasted text, and it's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple input schema with one parameter, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral details and parameter guidance. For a read-only tool with output schema support, it's complete enough to be functional but could be more informative.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't mention any parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%, leaving the single parameter 'spreadsheet' undocumented in both the schema and description. However, with only one parameter, the baseline is higher (4), but the description adds no value beyond the schema. It doesn't explain what 'spreadsheet' refers to (e.g., ID, name, or URL), so it slightly undercompensates for the coverage gap.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'full structure of a spreadsheet', specifying what information is retrieved (sheets, named ranges, protected ranges). It distinguishes itself from siblings like sheets_read (likely for cell data) and sheets_protect (for modifying protections), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing access to the spreadsheet), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like sheets_read (for cell content) or script_get_file (for script metadata). Usage is implied by the purpose but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'List all triggers' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the output takes, whether there are rate limits, or how errors are handled. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.
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 a single, efficient sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core functionality.
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?
Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values) and only one simple parameter, the description is reasonably complete for basic understanding. However, for a tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should provide more behavioral context about authentication, error handling, or output characteristics beyond just stating the operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for the single 'script_id' parameter, the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool name. The description mentions 'for a script project' which loosely relates to 'script_id', but doesn't explain what format the ID should be, where to find it, or any constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the single parameter.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('List all triggers') and resource ('for a script project'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'trigger_create_time_driven' or 'trigger_delete' beyond the basic list vs create/delete distinction.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparison with other trigger-related tools like 'trigger_create_time_driven' or 'trigger_delete' that exist in the sibling list.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'analyzes' and 'produces' documentation, implying read operations, but doesn't disclose whether this requires specific permissions, whether it modifies the spreadsheet (the 'sheet' output option suggests it might), potential rate limits, or what happens with the 'text' output option. The description is insufficient for a tool with potential write operations.
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?
The description is well-structured with purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. It's appropriately sized at 4 sentences. The Args section could be integrated more smoothly, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste. Every sentence adds value.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (analyzing multiple components), no annotations, and an output schema exists (so return values are documented elsewhere), the description is moderately complete. It covers the core purpose and parameters well but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a documentation generation tool that might write to spreadsheets, more disclosure would be helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters. It clarifies that 'spreadsheet_url' accepts URL or ID, 'script_url' is optional and accepts URL or ID, and 'output' has two specific options ('sheet' and 'text') with clear explanations of what each does. This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.
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?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate functional documentation for a spreadsheet project' with specific analysis targets (spreadsheet structure, script functions, triggers, manifest). It distinguishes from siblings like 'sheets_describe' or 'script_get_function' by focusing on comprehensive documentation generation rather than simple description or retrieval. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all relevant siblings.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools might be more suitable. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used for initial documentation versus updates, or how it relates to 'sheets_describe' or 'script_list_functions'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only partially discloses behavior. It mentions 'generates and runs trigger setup code' which implies execution, but doesn't cover important aspects like permissions needed, whether this is a write operation, error handling, or what happens if a trigger already exists. The behavioral context is incomplete for a tool that creates and executes code.
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?
The description is appropriately sized with clear structure: a purpose statement followed by bullet-point options. Each sentence earns its place, though the formatting as 'Options:' with bullet points could be more integrated. It's front-loaded with the main purpose.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (creating and executing trigger code), no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description is moderately complete. It covers timing parameters well but lacks information about the script execution behavior, error conditions, and the relationship between required parameters (script_id, function_name) and the timing options.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 6 parameters, the description compensates well by explaining the semantics of timing parameters (every_minutes, every_hours, day_of_week, hour) and their relationships. It clarifies that day_of_week + hour creates weekly triggers, hour alone creates daily triggers, and provides valid value ranges. However, it doesn't explain script_id or function_name parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the tool creates a time-driven trigger via Apps Script execution, specifying the action (create) and resource (time-driven trigger). It distinguishes from siblings like trigger_delete and trigger_list by focusing on creation, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other trigger-related tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for creating time-driven triggers with specific timing options, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like script_run or other trigger tools. It provides context about trigger types but lacks explicit guidance on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description lacks details on permissions needed, whether the deletion is reversible, error handling, or what happens to associated resources. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.
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 sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary details.
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?
Given that there is an output schema (which handles return values), the description covers basic purpose and usage. However, for a destructive tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage on parameters, it lacks critical details like behavioral traits and parameter meanings. The description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps in context.
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%, meaning parameters 'script_id' and 'trigger_id' are undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'trigger by ID' but does not explain what 'script_id' is, its relationship to 'trigger_id', or the format/requirements for these IDs. It adds minimal value beyond implying IDs are needed, failing to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a trigger by ID'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It also distinguishes from siblings by referencing 'trigger_list' for finding IDs, which helps differentiate it from other trigger-related tools like 'trigger_create_time_driven'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly provides when to use this tool ('Delete a trigger by ID') and when to use an alternative ('Use trigger_list to find IDs'), offering clear guidance on prerequisites and distinguishing it from sibling tools. This helps the agent understand the workflow and tool selection context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool previews without sending and returns a formatted message, which covers the core behavior. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'formatted message' entails (e.g., HTML vs. plain text rendering), leaving gaps for a mutation-like operation.
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 extremely concise with two short sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. Every part earns its place by stating the action, key constraint ('without sending it'), and return value, making it efficient and well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and basic behavior, and the output schema likely handles return value details. However, it lacks parameter semantics and deeper behavioral context, slightly reducing completeness for a preview tool that simulates email sending.
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?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all 4 parameters. It mentions no parameter details beyond the general context of email previewing. While 'to', 'subject', 'body', and 'html' are self-explanatory for email, the description adds no specific semantics, constraints, or examples, failing to adequately document the inputs.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Preview an email') and distinguishes it from actual sending operations. It explicitly mentions what the tool does ('without sending it') and what it returns ('formatted message'), making the purpose unambiguous and differentiated from sibling tools like 'send_email' and 'send_html_email'.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('Preview an email without sending it'), implying it's for testing or verification before actual email dispatch. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives like 'send_email', though the context is sufficient for basic differentiation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by explaining the tool's dual-mode behavior (sheet-only vs full discovery), mentioning Google API limitations (container-bound scripts don't appear in Drive API), and specifying what gets returned in each case. It doesn't cover authentication needs, rate limits, or error handling, but provides substantial behavioral context.
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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by dedicated Args and Returns sections. Every sentence adds value: the opening establishes purpose, the parameter explanations provide crucial context, and the return statement clarifies the conditional output. No wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, conditional behavior), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, parameter usage, behavioral conditions, and return values. The output schema will handle return value details, so the description appropriately focuses on when and how to use the tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters5/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining both parameters in detail: spreadsheet_url accepts 'URL or ID', and script_url is optional with specific guidance about when to provide it (for full discovery) and what format to use ('Apps Script URL or ID from Extensions > Apps Script'). It also explains the Google limitation that motivates providing script_url.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Connect to a Google Spreadsheet and discover everything about it'), identifies the resource (Google Spreadsheet), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like sheets_describe or sheets_read by emphasizing comprehensive discovery including Apps Script components when available.
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?
The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to discover spreadsheet structure and Apps Script components) and explains the conditional behavior based on script_url parameter. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gworkspace-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LeooNic/gworkspace-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LeooNic/gworkspace-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![gworkspace-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LeooNic/gworkspace-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/LeooNic/gworkspace-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/LeooNic/gworkspace-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server