google-workspace-mcp-advanced

create_script_project

Create a new Apps Script project in your Google Drive, optionally under a parent folder, with a dry run mode to preview before creation.

Instructions

Create a new Apps Script project.

Args: user_google_email: The user's Google email address. Required. title: Script project title. parent_id: Optional parent Drive file ID. dry_run: Preview creation without mutation. Defaults to True.

Returns: str: Confirmation of preview or creation.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "user_google_email": "<user_google_email>",
      "title": "<title>"
    },
    "name": "create_script_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`user_google_email`	Yes
`title`	Yes
`parent_id`	No
`dry_run`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.10Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that dry_run defaults to True, providing a preview without mutation, and that the return is a confirmation string. However, it lacks details on side effects, permissions, or error cases.

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 concise, well-structured with Args/Returns sections, and contains no superfluous information. Every sentence adds value.

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 complexity and presence of an output schema, the description covers parameter semantics and return type adequately. It lacks contextual guidance on integration with other script tools or error handling, but is sufficient for basic use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaningful explanations for all four parameters, including default values and required status, compensating fully for the schema gaps.

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 'Create a new Apps Script project,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like get_script_project, delete_script_project, etc.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives. Usage is implied by the tool's purpose.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server