Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

script.projects.deployments.delete

Delete an Apps Script project deployment by script ID and deployment ID to remove a published deployment. The action is irreversible and blocked in read-only mode.

Instructions

Deletes a deployment of an Apps Script project [HTTP DELETE] — removes the resource; irreversible unless the API documents a trash/undo flow; refused under --readonly safety profiles. Returns the post-delete resource state (or empty) as JSON — request bodies are built from the typed parameters (typed flags win over the params map), or read whole from body_file Siblings over the same resource: create, get, list, update.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNoExtra KEY=VALUE query pairs for endpoints whose parameters Discovery does not describe.
paramsNoParameter map merged into the request; typed parameters win.
dry_runNoReturn the request that would be sent, without sending it.
scriptIdYes[URL path segment] The script project's Drive ID.
body_fileNoRead the request body from this file ('-' for stdin) instead of building one from the parameters.
deploymentIdYes[URL path segment] The deployment ID to be undeployed.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / deploymentId / description
      Previous value: -"The deployment ID to be undeployed."New value: +"[URL path segment] The deployment ID to be undeployed."
    • changedInput schema / properties / scriptId / description
      Previous value: -"The script project's Drive ID."New value: +"[URL path segment] The script project's Drive ID."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden well: it discloses destructive behavior, possible irreversibility, --readonly refusal, and post-delete return state. It does not mention required permissions or scopes, which keeps it short of 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?

The core action is front-loaded in the first clause. The later details about return state, request-body construction, and siblings are relevant, though the single long sentence with em dashes and parentheticals is somewhat dense.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, the description is substantially complete: it covers destructiveness, safety-profile behavior, return state, and request-body construction. An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and remaining gaps such as auth scopes are minor.

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 explains all six parameters. The description restates that typed parameters win over the params map and that body_file can replace a built request body, but adds little new meaning beyond the structured fields.

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 states a specific verb and resource: deletes a deployment of an Apps Script project. It also explicitly distinguishes the tool from sibling operations on the same resource: create, get, list, and update.

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?

It gives clear context for a destructive operation, including irreversibility and refusal under --readonly safety profiles. It names sibling operations, though it does not explicitly spell out when to choose delete versus alternatives such as update or get.

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