google-appscript-mcp-server

script_projects_get

Retrieve metadata for a Google Apps Script project by providing its script ID. Uses automatic OAuth authentication to fetch project details like title and update time.

Instructions

Get metadata of a Google Apps Script project. OAuth authentication is handled automatically.

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>"
    },
    "name": "script_projects_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`fields`	No	Selector specifying which fields to include in a partial response.
`scriptId`	Yes	The ID of the script project to retrieve.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that OAuth authentication is handled automatically, which is useful context. However, it does not describe return format, error behavior, or side effects, though 'Get' implies a read-only operation.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences that front-load the core purpose and then add a key behavioral detail. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague filler.

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?

For a simple metadata retrieval tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It states purpose and the OAuth handling, but could enhance completeness by clarifying what 'metadata' includes or when to prefer this over related content-fetching tools.

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 input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (scriptId and fields), so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline of 3 applies as the schema handles the semantics fully.

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 tool retrieves metadata of a Google Apps Script project, using the specific verb 'Get' and naming the resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like script_projects_get_content, which retrieves content rather than metadata.

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. It does not mention scenarios, exclusions, or sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and the fact it fetches metadata.

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