Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
google-workspace-mcp-advanced

google-workspace-mcp-advanced

by Skeptomenos
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

get_script_content

Retrieve the source files and metadata of a Google Apps Script project, optionally targeting a specific version for auditing or replication.

Instructions

Get Apps Script project content, optionally pinned to a version.

Args: user_google_email: The user's Google email address. Required. script_id: The Apps Script project ID. version_number: Optional script version number.

Returns: str: Script files and metadata.

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>",
      "script_id": "<script_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_script_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_google_emailYes
script_idYes
version_numberNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.10

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it reads content. It does not disclose authentication needs, error behavior, or rate limits. The mention of 'optionally pinned to a version' is minimal.

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 concise (one sentence plus structured Args/Returns) and front-loaded. It avoids verbosity but could be more compact without the redundant 'Args' section.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic operation and return type. However, it lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidance, leaving gaps for an AI 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 coverage is 0%, so description compensates by clarifying that user_google_email is required, script_id is required, and version_number is optional. However, it does not provide format or constraint details beyond the schema.

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 it retrieves Apps Script project content with optional version pinning. It distinguishes from siblings like get_script_project (metadata) and get_version (single version details) by focusing on 'content'.

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 (e.g., get_script_project, list_versions, run_script_function). It does not specify prerequisites or context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools