google-cloud-console-mcp

Disable an API

gcp_disable_api

Disables a specified Google API for a GCP project. Use to deactivate an API, but note that dependent services may stop working.

Instructions

Disables a Google API for a project. Dependent services may stop working.

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": {
      "serviceName": "<serviceName>"
    },
    "name": "gcp_disable_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	No	GCP project id; defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var
`serviceName`	Yes	API service name, e.g. "androidpublisher.googleapis.com", "storage.googleapis.com"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds the important side-effect warning that dependent services may stop working, which is useful beyond the name. However, it does not mention permissions required, reversibility, or the effect on existing resources, leaving notable gaps for a destructive toggle.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the key side effect. No wasted words, and the most critical operational warning is included efficiently.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states the action and one side effect. It lacks details on permissions, reversibility, or whether dependent services recover, which an agent would need to call this safely.

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 both parameters (projectId and serviceName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Disables a Google API for a project.' It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling gcp_enable_api or gcp_get_api_status. Purpose is unambiguous but lacks sibling differentiation.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like gcp_enable_api or gcp_get_api_status. The description merely describes the action, not the context or conditions under which it should be selected.

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

Deploy Server