Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

script.projects.versions.create

Creates a new immutable version from a Google Apps Script project's current code, assigning a unique version number and returning the API response as JSON.

Instructions

Creates a new immutable version using the current code, with a unique version number [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 Version object accepting createTime, description, scriptId, versionNumber; pass it via params or whole via body_file Siblings over the same resource: get, list.

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. The body is a JSON Version object.
request_bodyNoRequest body of type Version: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scriptIdNo
createTimeNo
descriptionNo
versionNumberNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • 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 Version object."
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_body
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Request body of type Version: pass it via `params` (merged into the built body) or whole via `body_file`.",
+  "properties": {
+    "createTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scriptId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "versionNumber": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. 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"
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scriptId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "versionNumber": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  3. 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, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the HTTP POST verb, that it mutates/triggers a change, that it fails under --readonly profiles, that the resulting version is immutable and uniquely numbered, and that the API response resource is returned. It does not state permission/auth requirements or whether the version is tied to a deployment, which keeps it below 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-loaded with the core purpose and no filler, but the single dense run-on sentence with multiple em-dash clauses is harder to scan than a short structured form would be.

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-value detail is optional, yet the description still notes JSON response resource. For a mutation tool with no annotations it covers the mutation semantics and readonly refusal; only auth/permission scope is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters and the Version body fields are already documented in the schema. The description restates the Version field list and the params-vs-body_file routing, adding little beyond the structured fields; baseline 3 applies.

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 ('Creates') and resource ('new immutable version using the current code') with scope and uniqueness detail. It also names the sibling operations (get, list) that act on the same resource, so an agent can distinguish this from reads without opening the schema.

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 names the siblings over the same resource (get, list) and adds a concrete usage constraint: refused under --readonly safety profiles. There is no explicit 'use this instead of X when Y' routing, but the operation context is clear.

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