Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Play MCP

Google Play MCP

by fil-technology
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

list_bundles

List uploaded app bundles for an app to inspect versionCode, SHA-1, and SHA-256 identifiers, optionally from an open edit or a temporary read-only edit.

Instructions

List the app bundles uploaded for an app (versionCode, sha1, sha256). Read-only.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_bundles"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
editIdNoOptional: read from this open edit (to see uncommitted changes). Without it a temporary edit is opened and deleted.
packageNameYesApplication id (package name), e.g. com.example.app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the operation is read-only and lists key returned fields, but omits auth requirements, pagination, rate limits, and the side effect of opening/deleting a temporary edit, which is left only in the schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It compactly includes the purpose, returned fields, and read-only status.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-parameter read-only list tool with fully documented schema fields, the description gives enough to understand purpose and output fields. The main missing context is selection guidance versus list_apks, but the schema covers the important editId side effect.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains packageName and editId in detail. The description adds no syntax, constraints, or meaning beyond that baseline; 'for an app' only weakly implies packageName.

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?

States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('app bundles uploaded for an app'), and names returned fields (versionCode, sha1, sha256). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling list_apks, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no alternatives, and no exclusions. 'Read-only' is a behavioral trait, not usage guidance, and nothing tells an agent when to choose list_bundles over list_apks or other list_* tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools