get_app_permissionsGoogle Play declared device/data permissions for one app, grouped by permission group. Google only — passing store="apple" returns a not_supported error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Google package name. | |
| lang | No | Language. | |
| store | No | Must be google. Default google. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already establish that this is a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds useful context beyond the schema: the grouping by permission group and the specific error behavior when an invalid store value is provided. This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and immediately followed by the critical constraint. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It is exceptionally concise and well-structured.
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 read-only tool with fully documented parameters and clear annotations, the description provides all necessary context: the exact data returned, the grouping structure, and the error behavior for a common mistake. No important information appears missing for correct tool invocation.
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 input schema already provides complete descriptions for all three parameters (id, lang, store) with 100% coverage. The description reiterates the Google-only restriction, matching the schema, but adds no additional semantic detail beyond what is already in the structured parameter descriptions.
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 clearly states a specific action and resource: retrieving Google Play declared device/data permissions for one app, grouped by permission group. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_app and get_app_datasafety by focusing on permissions and the Google-only scope.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Google only' and warns that passing store="apple" returns a not_supported error, which is a clear when-not condition. However, it doesn't name alternative tools or explain when to prefer this over get_app_datasafety, so it lacks full explicit guidance on alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct data resource: app details, reviews, permissions, data safety, charts, categories, developer, similar apps, search, autocomplete, and ASO keyword/rank tools. Even get_app vs get_apps_batch is clearly separated by single vs batch/bundleId lookups.
Most tools follow a get_* verb_noun pattern (get_app, get_charts, get_developer), but autocomplete_suggest and search_apps deviate slightly. The style is otherwise consistent with clear snake_case naming.
13 tools is well within the ideal range for a store data API serving both Apple and Google. Each tool covers a distinct aspect, and none are redundant or excessive.
The tool set covers all major read-only store data needs: search, detailed app info, reviews, charts, categories, developer, similar apps, and ASO insights. Minor gaps include lack of time-series rank tracking and no dedicated changelog endpoint, but version history is included in get_app.