Google Play Console MCP

by abd3lraouf-studios

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

Get Device Tier Config

get_device_tier_config

Retrieve device tier configuration details for an Android app using package name and config ID.

Instructions

Get a device tier config.

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": {
      "package_name": "<package_name>",
      "device_tier_config_id": "<device_tier_config_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_device_tier_config"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package_name`	Yes	App package name
`device_tier_config_id`	Yes	Device tier config ID

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only restates the action 'Get' without adding any behavioral context such as read-only guarantees, error behavior, permissions, or what kind of result is returned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise but under-specified. The single sentence is essentially a restatement of the tool name and title, so it does not earn its place by adding useful information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The output schema and complete parameter coverage reduce some burden, and the tool is conceptually simple. However, the description lacks any context about what a device tier config is, how this getter differs from list_device_tier_configs, or when it should be used, leaving noticeable gaps for an agent.

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%, and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema already documents package_name and device_tier_config_id adequately.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Get a device tier config.' It clearly names the action and object, but it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like list_device_tier_configs or create_device_tier_config, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention list_device_tier_configs for enumerating configs, create_device_tier_config for creating, or any condition that would select this tool.

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

Deploy Server