reply_to_reviewRespond directly to user reviews on Google Play, addressing feedback and improving app ratings.
Reply to a user review.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| review_id | Yes | ID of the review to reply to (from get_reviews) | |
| reply_text | Yes | Text of the reply (will be visible to the reviewer) | |
| 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Reply to a user review' and does not mention whether the reply is created, updated, overwritten, or whether there are restrictions such as one reply per review. The schema's note about visibility is the only behavioral hint, but it is outside the description.
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 wasted words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse, though it sacrifices behavioral detail for brevity.
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 simple tool with three fully documented required parameters and an output schema present, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits the reply lifecycle (e.g., what happens if a reply already exists) and does not reference the related delete_review_reply sibling, leaving some contextual 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no additional parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides, which keeps this at the baseline.
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 action ('Reply') and resource ('a user review'), making the core purpose clear. It is distinguishable from sibling tools like get_reviews and delete_review_reply, though it does not add details beyond the title.
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 on when to use this tool versus related siblings such as delete_review_reply or get_review. The description provides no context about workflow, prerequisites, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.