SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev

Google Play app details from the public app page's JSON-LD

dev_google_play_store

Read-only

Google Play app details from the public app page's JSON-LD: name, developer, category, content rating, average rating and number of ratings, description. Install counts and reviews are not on that block and are not returned. Related tools on this server, for a different need: dev_apple_app_store_iphone when you need App Store iPhone app metadata from Apple's public iTunes; dev_mac_app_store when you need Mac App Store app metadata from Apple's public iTunes. Price: $0.002 in USDC per successful call, paid with x402 (Base, Solana or Arc); failed calls are not charged.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "dev_google_play_store"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Android package name, e.g. com.spotify.music

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	No
`name`	No
`rating`	No
`source`	No
`category`	No
`checkedAt`	No
`developer`	No
`description`	No
`ratingCount`	No
`developerUrl`	No
`contentRating`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description goes beyond them by disclosing the billing model — $0.002 in USDC per successful call via x402 on Base, Solana or Arc, with failed calls uncharged — which is real decision-relevant context for an agent. It stops short of latency, rate limits, or fallback behavior when an app page has no JSON-LD block.

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?

Front-loads the resource and returned fields, then exclusions, then sibling routing, then pricing — a sensible order with no filler. The single dense paragraph is efficient, though the pricing tail and sibling list make it slightly heavy for a one-parameter lookup.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description covers source of truth, field scope, exclusions, alternatives, and payment. Nothing an agent needs in order to decide and invoke correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with a single required parameter already documented as an Android package name with an example (com.spotify.music). The description adds no format, normalization, or error semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Names a specific resource (Google Play app details from the public app page's JSON-LD) and enumerates the returned fields (name, developer, category, content rating, average rating, ratings count, description). It also pre-empts a likely expectation by stating that install counts and reviews are not on that block, so an agent can tell exactly what this returns versus what it must source elsewhere.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly routes to two named alternatives with the condition that selects them (App Store iPhone metadata via Apple's iTunes, Mac App Store metadata via Apple's iTunes). It lacks only an explicit negative case such as 'do not use for install counts or user reviews', though the field list implies it.

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

All SiteCheck Agent Intel & Dev tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?