get_releasesCheck the release status for every track of an Android app by submitting its package name. Use it to monitor rollout state and track availability across production, beta, and testing channels.
Get release status for all tracks of an app.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_name | Yes | App package name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'get' implies a read-only operation and 'all tracks of an app' defines scope, providing minimal but valid behavioral context. It does not explicitly state side-effect-freeness or whether an open edit is required, but nothing is misleading.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the action, object, and scope efficiently.
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 one-parameter listing tool with an output schema, the description plus schema provide enough to invoke it correctly. It is not a 5 because it omits any contextual framing (e.g., read-only assurance or relationship to other release-related tools), but the low complexity makes this a minor gap.
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 description coverage is 100%: package_name is described as 'App package name'. The description adds no param-specific detail beyond that, but the schema already fully documents the single parameter, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('release status') and narrows the scope to 'all tracks of an app'. This clearly distinguishes it from targeted actions like promote_release, halt_release, or update_rollout.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_release_filter_options, get_app_details, or promote_release. There is no when-to-use, exclusion, or alternative routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.