validate_package_nameEnsure an Android package name follows required format before using it in other Play Console operations.
Validate package name format before using it in other operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_name | Yes | Package name to validate (e.g., com.example.myapp) |
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Validate format' clearly implies a non-mutating check, but the description does not explicitly state that no changes are made or what happens when validation fails. This is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 concise sentence, front-loads the core action, and includes a pragmatic usage hint without any filler or repetition of the tool name.
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 single-parameter validation tool with an output schema available, this description is complete: it states the purpose, the usage timing, and the input is fully defined by the schema. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.
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 input schema already covers the single parameter fully with a clear example, so the description adds little beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because schema description coverage is 100%.
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 (validate), a specific resource (package name), and a specific scope (format), and frames it as a preflight step before other operations. This makes it clearly distinguishable from sibling validation tools like validate_track, validate_listing_text, and validate_edit.
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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool: before using a package name in other operations. It does not enumerate exclusions or alternatives, but for this simple validation tool the timing guidance is clear and sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.