Google Play MCP

list_reviews

Read recent Google Play user reviews with ratings, comments, device/app details, and developer replies; optionally translate review text or paginate through all results.

Instructions

List recent user reviews (rating, text, device, app version, any developer reply). NOTE: the API only returns reviews created or modified in roughly the last week, and only reviews that have a text comment. translationLanguage (e.g. 'en') returns translated text. 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_reviews"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`token`	No	Page token from a previous call
`allPages`	No	Follow page tokens and return everything (default false)
`maxResults`	No	Page size (default 50)
`packageName`	Yes	Application id (package name), e.g. com.example.app
`translationLanguage`	No	BCP-47 language to translate review text into

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does well: it declares read-only behavior, discloses the narrow recency window and the text-comment-only filter that would otherwise surprise a caller, and explains what translationLanguage actually does. It omits auth/permission requirements and pagination/rate-limit behavior, though page token and allPages are at least visible 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and followed by the constraints that most affect a caller's decision. The parenthetical field list earns its place; wording is dense with no filler or repetition.

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 five-parameter read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description gives both the returned shape and the critical scoping caveats, which is what an agent most needs before calling. Pagination mechanics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given full coverage there.

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 every parameter is already documented in structured form and the baseline applies. The description adds only one piece of meaning beyond the schema, clarifying that translationLanguage produces translated text rather than merely selecting a language; it says nothing additional about maxResults, allPages, or token.

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 and resource ("List recent user reviews") and enumerates what each record contains (rating, text, device, app version, developer reply), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. Since sibling tools are list_* of entirely different resources (apks, bundles, listings), no explicit sibling differentiation is needed here.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The NOTE gives operational conditions that determine whether calling this tool is worthwhile at all: only reviews from roughly the last week and only those with a text comment. That is strong implicit when-to-use guidance, but it never names an alternative for retrieving older or rating-only reviews, so the agent cannot route elsewhere.

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

Deploy Server