Identifies crash and ANR issues first seen in a release to flag likely regressions and guide triage.
Crash/ANR issues first seen in this version (likely regressions).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | No | App alias from config or Play package name. Optional if only one app. | |
| version_code | No | versionCode. Defaults to the release currently rolling out on production. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful filtering semantics (only issues first appearing in the given version) and the interpretive caveat that these are 'likely' regressions, but says nothing about ordering, volume, or limits of the returned set.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the resource and the scoping condition, with no filler. It is efficient but border-line under-specified rather than genuinely polished.
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?
An output schema exists and the input schema is fully described, so the core contract is covered elsewhere. However, for a regression-triage tool the description omits how results are ordered or bounded and how to interpret empty results, leaving gaps an agent would want filled.
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 both parameters (app, version_code) are fully documented with defaults in the schema. The description corroborates the version_code semantics with 'this version', but adds no new meaning beyond the schema; baseline applies, with slight credit for reinforcing the version scoping.
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 names a specific resource (crash/ANR issues) and a precise scope ('first seen in this version'), which lets an agent infer this is a regression-detection listing. It falls short of a clear verb+resource statement and never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'top_crashes'.
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 parenthetical '(likely regressions)' implies the use case — checking whether a rollout introduced new crashes — but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when to prefer 'top_crashes' or 'get_release_health' instead, and no stated prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.