gworkspace-mcp

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.