get_v2_play_store_top_appsPlay Store / Top Apps Group: Mobile Apps. Billing per call: 1 Credits.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | ||
| country | No | Country URL code. Example: `united-states`, `albania` | |
| category | No | Category URL code. Example: `business` | |
| trending | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining side effects, rate limits, or read-only behavior. It only mentions billing (1 Credit per call) but does not clarify if the operation is safe or has any other behavioral implications.
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 very brief but also contains redundant and irrelevant phrasing ('Group: Mobile Apps'). It is not well-structured and provides minimal value beyond the title.
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?
There is no mention of output format, return values, or edge cases. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.
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?
The schema provides descriptions for country and category, but mode and trending lack descriptions. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, failing to compensate for the 50% schema coverage gap.
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 repeats the title and adds 'Group: Mobile Apps' but does not explicitly state that the tool retrieves top apps from the Google Play Store. It relies on the tool name for clarity, which is insufficient for distinguishing from sibling tools like get_v2_app_store_top_apps.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of conditions, filters, or scenarios that would make this tool preferable to similar ones.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.