google-cloud-console-mcp

Add a project IAM role binding

gcp_add_project_iam_binding

Grant one IAM role to a member on a GCP project without overwriting existing bindings.

Instructions

Grants one role to one member on a project, preserving all existing bindings (read-modify-write against the current policy).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "role": "<role>",
      "member": "<member>"
    },
    "name": "gcp_add_project_iam_binding"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	Yes	e.g. "roles/editor"
`member`	Yes	e.g. "serviceAccount:x@y.iam.gserviceaccount.com" or "user:a@b.com"
`projectId`	No	GCP project id; defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var if omitted

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It clearly discloses additive (preserving existing bindings) and read-modify-write semantics, which is the critical behavioral fact. Does not mention permission requirements or the race condition risk inherent in read-modify-write.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Single sentence, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the behaviorally decisive parenthetical. No filler.

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 3-param mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential semantics. Could add permission scope (resourcemanager.projects.setIamPolicy) and idempotency/race notes, but is largely complete.

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% and each parameter has examples, so the description adds no per-parameter detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 (Grants) + resource (one role to one member on a project) with cardinality made explicit. Clearly distinguished from sibling gcp_remove_project_iam_binding and gcp_set_project_iam_policy.

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 read-modify-write explanation implies additive semantics versus the destructive set/remove siblings, but no explicit when-to-use vs gcp_set_project_iam_policy guidance is given.

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

Deploy Server