grr

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

script.projects.create

Creates a new empty Google Apps Script project with a base manifest, using parent ID and title to start scripts in a specified Drive location.

Instructions

Creates a new, empty script project with no script files and a base manifest file [HTTP POST] — creates or triggers a change; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the API's response resource as JSON — request body is a JSON CreateProjectRequest object accepting parentId, title; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: get, getContent, getMetrics, updateContent.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	No	Extra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
`params`	No	Parameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
`dry_run`	No	Return the request that would be sent, without sending it.
`body_file`	No	Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON CreateProjectRequest object.
`request_body`	No	Request body of type CreateProjectRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No
`creator`	No
`parentId`	No
`scriptId`	No
`createTime`	No
`updateTime`	No
`lastModifyUser`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / body_file / description

Previous value: -"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters."New value: +"Read the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters. The body is a JSON CreateProjectRequest object."

addedInput schema / properties / request_body

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type CreateProjectRequest: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "parentId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 26, 2026

changedOutput schema / (root)

Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "createTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "creator": {
+      "properties": {
+        "domain": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "email": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "photoUrl": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "lastModifyUser": {
+      "properties": {
+        "domain": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "email": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "name": {
+          "type": "string"
+        },
+        "photoUrl": {
+          "type": "string"
+        }
+      },
+      "type": "object"
+    },
+    "parentId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scriptId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "title": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "updateTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}

First observedOct 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the load well: it discloses HTTP POST, that it mutates/creates, that it is refused under --readonly safety profiles, and that it returns the API response resource as JSON. It omits auth/scope requirements and failure modes, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Front-loads the creation semantics and safety note before the parameter and sibling details; every clause is functional. It is dense and slightly crammed (HTTP verb, safety profile, body routing, sibling list all in one block), but nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, the description covers what it creates, that it is blocked in readonly profiles, and how to supply the body; return values are covered by the output schema. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents query, params, dry_run, body_file, and the CreateProjectRequest fields. The description restates the parentId/title body and the params-vs-body_file routing but adds no new semantics beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is correct.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('Creates a new, empty script project') with a clarifying scope detail ('no script files and a base manifest file') that distinguishes it from updateContent. It also names the sibling tools over the same resource, so an agent can place it immediately.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly lists sibling operations over the same resource (get, getContent, getMetrics, updateContent) and the description makes clear this is the creation path. It stops short of an explicit 'use updateContent to modify instead' exclusion, but the contrast is strongly implied.

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

Deploy Server