google-play-developer-mcp

images_list

List uploaded images for an Android app store listing. Specify package name, edit ID, locale, and image type to get available images like screenshots or feature graphics.

Instructions

List uploaded images for a specific type and locale.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "packageName": "<packageName>",
      "editId": "<editId>",
      "language": "<language>",
      "imageType": "<imageType>"
    },
    "name": "images_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`editId`	Yes	Edit id returned by `edits_insert` — required for all edits.* writes
`language`	Yes	BCP-47 locale, e.g. en-US, fr-FR, zh-Hans
`imageType`	Yes
`packageName`	Yes	Android application package name, e.g. com.example.app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, requires an ongoing edit session, or what the return format is. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very concise at 8 words, but it omits critical details. While it is not verbose, under-specification detracts from conciseness. A slightly longer description would be more valuable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 required parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description lacks crucial context about return values, edit session dependency, and when to filter by imageType. It feels incomplete for a production API.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is high (75%); descriptions for packageName, editId, and language are in the schema. The description adds no new parameter information beyond paraphrasing 'type and locale'. The imageType enum lacks explanation of its options, but baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'uploaded images', and specifies scope with 'for a specific type and locale'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like images_delete, images_upload, and images_delete_all.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that an active edit context (editId) is required, nor does it specify scenarios for filtering by imageType or locale.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server