Retrieve Google Play app permission groups or a short permission name list for a given app ID, helping you audit what data an Android app requests.
Retrieve Google Play app permissions. Returns Google Play permission groups or a short permission name list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Two-letter language code | |
| short | No | Return only permission names | |
| app_id | Yes | Google Play app id | |
| country | No | Two-letter country code |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description should fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the tool 'retrieves' permissions, implying a read operation, but does not confirm if it's safe (non-destructive), or mention rate limits, authentication, or output format details beyond the vague 'groups or list'. This is insufficient.
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 short (two sentences), which is concise but at the expense of completeness. It front-loads the core action but lacks detail needed for effective tool selection. For a tool with four parameters and no annotations, it is under-specified.
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?
Given the complexity (4 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It does not explain what permission groups look like, how to interpret the output, or how the 'short' parameter affects the result. An agent would be left guessing the return format.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it hints that 'short' returns a name list, but this is already in the schema. Benefits of other parameters (country, lang) are not elaborated, but they are self-explanatory.
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 the tool retrieves Google Play app permissions and specifies two types of output (permission groups or short permission names). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like googleplay_datasafety or googleplay_app, which reduces clarity in distinguishing use cases.
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. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it. Given the many sibling tools, this omission is a significant gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.