google-cloud-console-mcp

Create service account

gcp_create_service_account

Create a new Google Cloud service account in a specified project to grant workloads or applications their own identity and IAM permissions.

Instructions

Creates a new service account in a project.

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": {
      "accountId": "<accountId>"
    },
    "name": "gcp_create_service_account"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`accountId`	Yes	6-30 char id, becomes accountId@project.iam.gserviceaccount.com
`projectId`	No	GCP project id; defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var
`description`	No
`displayName`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Creates' but omits whether the call is idempotent, what happens on duplicate accountId, whether it mutates project IAM state, and what the response contains—significant gaps for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is well-formed and economical, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined compression.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With four parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and only 50% schema coverage, this definition leaves an agent without enough to call the tool confidently—error behavior, permission requirements, and half the parameter meanings are absent.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50%: accountId and projectId are documented inline, but 'description' and 'displayName' are undocumented. The description adds nothing beyond the schema—'in a project' only loosely hints at projectId—so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new service account in a project'), which is unambiguous on its own. However, it makes no attempt to distinguish this from close siblings such as gcp_create_service_account_key or gcp_list_service_accounts, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from names alone.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites such as project IAM permissions, and no note about what to do when an account already exists. The agent must infer all usage conditions from the name.

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

Deploy Server