Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

script.projects.get

Retrieves an Apps Script project's metadata by Drive script ID and returns it as JSON, so you can inspect project details from the terminal.

Instructions

Gets a script project's metadata [HTTP GET]. Returns the requested resource 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, getContent, getMetrics, updateContent.

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.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo
creatorNo
parentIdNo
scriptIdNo
createTimeNo
updateTimeNo
lastModifyUserNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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: +{
+  "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"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Gets', 'metadata', and '[HTTP GET]' establish that this is a non-mutating read and that the result is JSON, which is useful; however there is nothing about permissions/scopes on the script project, error cases, or side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loads the purpose well, but the second sentence about request bodies built from typed parameters or read from body_file is template boilerplate that is near-irrelevant for a metadata GET with no request body, costing clarity without earning its words.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, and all five parameters are fully described in the schema. What is present is enough for an agent to call it correctly; only the missing permission/auth context keeps it from a 5.

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 scriptId, query, params, dry_run, and body_file. The description's note that 'typed flags win over the params map' mostly restates the schema's own wording, adding little new meaning beyond the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Gets a script project's metadata') and grounds it as an HTTP GET. Crucially it enumerates the sibling operations on the same resource (create, getContent, getMetrics, updateContent), so an agent can place it against them without opening other schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Naming the four siblings over the same resource gives an implied selection map, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over getContent or getMetrics (e.g. metadata vs source vs metrics). Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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