GCP MCP
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| run-gcp-codeD | Run GCP code |
| list-projectsA | List all GCP projects accessible with current credentials |
| select-projectB | Selects GCP project to use for subsequent interactions |
| get-billing-infoC | Get billing information for the current project |
| get-cost-forecastB | Get cost forecast for the current project |
| get-billing-budgetC | Get billing budgets for the current project |
| list-gke-clustersB | List all GKE clusters in the current project |
| list-sql-instancesB | List all Cloud SQL instances in the current project |
| get-logsB | Get Cloud Logging entries for the current project |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 9 tools
Most tools have distinct purposes targeting specific GCP services or functions, but 'run-gcp-code' is ambiguous and could overlap with other operations, potentially causing confusion. The other tools are clearly scoped to billing, logging, resource listing, and project selection.
The naming is mixed with inconsistent patterns: some use verb_noun (e.g., 'list-projects', 'get-logs'), others use noun_verb (e.g., 'run-gcp-code'), and hyphenation varies. While readable, it lacks a uniform convention across all tools.
With 9 tools, the count is reasonable for a GCP server, covering key areas like billing, logging, and resource management. It's slightly lean but well-scoped, avoiding bloat while providing essential functionality.
The toolset covers listing and getting operations well but has notable gaps in CRUD coverage, such as missing create, update, or delete tools for resources like GKE clusters or SQL instances. This could limit agent workflows that require full lifecycle management.