google-appscript-mcp-server

script_projects_deployments_update

Update an existing Apps Script deployment by specifying the script ID, deployment ID, and a new deployment configuration with manifest file name and optional version number or description.

Instructions

Updates a deployment of an Apps Script project.

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": {
      "scriptId": "<scriptId>",
      "deploymentId": "<deploymentId>",
      "deploymentConfig": "<deploymentConfig>"
    },
    "name": "script_projects_deployments_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scriptId`	Yes	The ID of the script to update.
`deploymentId`	Yes	The ID of the deployment to update.
`deploymentConfig`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 2, 2026

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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'updates' without explaining permissions, whether it is destructive, idempotency, or what happens to existing deployment settings. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the name.

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, focused sentence that is front-loaded with the action and object. It is concise and contains no fluff.

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?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema. It does not explain return values, side effects, or when to use it. The terse description is insufficient for a tool with nested parameters and potential update semantics.

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 schema descriptions cover the scriptId and deploymentId parameters, and the deploymentConfig object has nested property descriptions, giving 67% coverage. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the schema provides adequate semantics.

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 verb (Updates) and the resource (a deployment of an Apps Script project), distinguishing it from sibling tools like create, delete, list, and get for deployments.

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 create for new deployments or get for retrieval. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions.

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