Google Play MCP

list_languages

Retrieves the languages an app's Google Play store listing is localized into, plus the default language, to verify localization coverage.

Instructions

List the languages an app's store listing is localized into, plus the default language. 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_languages"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`editId`	No	Optional: read from this open edit (to see uncommitted changes). Without it a temporary edit is opened and deleted.
`packageName`	Yes	Application id (package name), e.g. com.example.app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full safety burden, and it does disclose 'Read-only' — the single most important behavioral fact. It does not cover auth/permission needs, rate limits, or the side effect that a temporary edit is opened and deleted when editId is omitted (that fact lives 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence stating the resource, the return content, and the read-only trait — nearly zero waste. Only minor tightening (separating the 'Read-only' note) would improve it.

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 tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description explains what is returned (locales plus default language) adequately. The behavior of the optional editId is fully covered by its schema description, so little is missing.

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 both parameters are already documented in structured form; the description adds no syntax or meaning beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (the languages a store listing is localized into) plus the extra return detail of the default language. It is distinguishable from siblings like list_listings by resource, though it never names an alternative explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied: read-only listing of languages. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a sibling such as list_listings when the caller wants full listing content rather than just locales.

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

Deploy Server