Skip to main content
Glama
debanjanbasu

grr

by debanjanbasu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

script.projects.versions.get

Retrieve a specific version of a Google Apps Script project by script ID and version number, returning the version details as JSON.

Instructions

Gets a version of a script project [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, 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.
versionNumberYes[URL path segment] The version number.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scriptIdNo
createTimeNo
descriptionNo
versionNumberNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 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."
    • changedInput schema / properties / versionNumber / description
      Previous value: -"The version number."New value: +"[URL path segment] The version number."
    • addedInput schema / properties / versionNumber / format
      Added value: +"int32"
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "properties": {
+    "createTime": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "description": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "scriptId": {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "versionNumber": {
+      "type": "integer"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this is an HTTP GET returning JSON and explains body construction via typed params or body_file, but it does not mention auth requirements, rate limits, or error behavior.

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 description is short and front-loads the core purpose and return format. The request-body clause is somewhat generic for a GET operation, but the overall structure is efficient and not padded.

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 GET tool with a rich input schema, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description is largely complete: it identifies the resource, method, return format, and sibling tools. Remaining omissions like auth details are minor given the structured data available.

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 all six parameters. The description adds little beyond the schema: its note that typed flags win over the params map is already present in the schema, and it gives no extra semantics for scriptId or versionNumber.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Gets a version of a script project,' and identifies the HTTP method. It also names the same-resource siblings create and list, which helps distinguish retrieval from mutation/list operations, though it does not explicitly frame the selection conditions.

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?

The sibling note 'Siblings over the same resource: create, list' implies that this tool retrieves while siblings create or enumerate, but it never says when to choose this tool versus list/create. The usage guidance is therefore implied rather than explicit.

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