get_testersFetch testers assigned to an app's internal, alpha, or beta track on Google Play. Provide the package name and track to see who currently has access to test builds.
Get testers for a specific testing track.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | Track name (internal, alpha, beta) | |
| package_name | Yes | App package name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only says 'Get,' implying a read operation, but it does not explicitly state that this is read-only, whether any side effects occur, or what authentication or prerequisites are required.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler or repetition. It is appropriately front-loaded and easy to parse, though it is slightly sparse.
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?
The tool is simple, has only two well-documented parameters, and has an output schema, so the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, it omits any guidance about retrieving versus modifying testers, and with no annotations it does not fully explain the behavioral context.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for package_name and track. The description adds no meaningful parameter detail beyond 'specific testing track,' so it does not enhance what the schema already provides.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get testers for a specific testing track.' This clearly identifies the tool's function, and the name plus sibling context helps distinguish it from update_testers, though it does not explicitly call out that distinction.
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 explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like update_testers. It implies a retrieval use case, but it does not state when not to use it or mention that update_testers should be used for modifications.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.