list_apksCheck which APK versions are currently uploaded for an app by supplying its package name. Use this list to verify builds before release management.
List the APKs currently uploaded for 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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states only the narrow action and does not clarify that this is a read-only operation, what an 'APK' entry includes, or how 'currently uploaded' relates to generated or internal sharing APKs. This is a meaningful gap for an unannotated tool.
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 sentence with no filler, front-loading the action and scope. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, and every word earns its place.
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 output schema exists, so return-value details are not needed. However, in the context of many APK- and bundle-related siblings, the description does not disambiguate from list_generated_apks or list_bundles, nor does it mention any prerequisites such as the app having been created. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter, package_name, with the clear description 'App package name.' The tool description adds no extra parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameter sufficiently.
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 'List' and a clear resource, 'APKs currently uploaded for an app,' which tells an agent what the tool does. It is not explicitly differentiated from sibling tools like list_bundles or list_generated_apks, but 'uploaded' provides a semantic contrast to generated/bundle variants.
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 given about when to use this tool instead of list_bundles, list_generated_apks, or upload_apk. With such a large sibling list, the absence of any usage context leaves the agent to infer the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.