list_script_deploymentsList all deployments for a Google Apps Script project using its script ID and user email, helping you track and manage script versions.
List deployments for an Apps Script project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script_id | Yes | ||
| user_google_email | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.28.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context such as whether archived deployments are included, authentication requirements, or pagination.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single clear sentence with no filler and the action is front-loaded. It is concise, though slightly under-specified for a tool whose schema lacks parameter descriptions.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a two-parameter tool with 0% schema description coverage, the one-line description leaves too much unstated. The agent must infer what user_google_email means and when this tool is preferable to sibling deployment/script management tools, despite the rich annotations and output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain script_id or user_google_email. 'Apps Script project' weakly implies script_id's role, but the description does not compensate for the undocumented parameters.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('deployments for an Apps Script project'), making the operation clear. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling 'manage_deployment', but the read/list framing is enough to separate them.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as manage_deployment, get_script_project, or get_script_version. The description only restates the action without providing context, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.