google-play-developer-mcp

reports_bitmap_memory_query

Queries bitmap memory usage over time for an app, enabling you to track trends, filter by cohort or dimension, and page through results.

Instructions

Query bitmap memory usage timeline.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "reports_bitmap_memory_query"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`filter`	No
`metrics`	No
`pageSize`	No
`pageToken`	No
`dimensions`	No
`userCohort`	No
`timelineSpec`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Query' weakly implies a read operation, but the description says nothing about permissions, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens with the optional filter and cohort parameters. With no annotations and no output schema, this is a substantial gap.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is concise, though its extreme brevity for an 8-parameter nested query tool borders on under-specification rather than ideal structure.

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 8 parameters, a nested timelineSpec object, no output schema, and no annotations, the one-sentence description is far too thin. It states the operation but omits parameter meaning, usage context, pagination behavior, and return expectations, leaving the agent with major unanswered questions.

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

Parameters1/5

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

The schema has 0% per-parameter description coverage across 8 parameters, and the description adds no meaning for any of them. It does not explain name, filter, metrics, pageSize, pageToken, dimensions, userCohort, or timelineSpec, so the agent receives no semantic guidance beyond the bare schema keys.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb (Query) and resource (bitmap memory usage timeline), so an agent can understand the operation. However, it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling reports_bitmap_memory_get or explain whether this is a time-series variant versus a point-in-time get.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no mention of alternatives. The agent is left to infer that this is the timeline/query variant while reports_bitmap_memory_get is the point-in-time variant, but the description never states that.

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

Deploy Server