Google Play MCP

reporting_search_error_issues

Search grouped crash and ANR issues for an Android app, filter by error type, and order results by report count to identify affected users and versions.

Instructions

Search grouped crash / ANR issues for an app (cause, location, affected users, first/last version). filter e.g. 'errorIssueType = CRASH'; orderBy e.g. 'errorReportCount desc'. OPTIONAL Reporting API. 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": "reporting_search_error_issues"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filter`	No
`orderBy`	No
`pageSize`	No	Default 50
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the tool is read-only and part of the optional Reporting API. However, it does not cover permissions, rate limits, pagination behavior, or what 'grouped' means operationally, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is a compact, front-loaded fragment that gives scope, examples, and safety context without wasted wording. Every element contributes to selecting or invoking the tool.

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 four-parameter read-only search tool with no output schema, the description covers the key returned dimensions and gives filter/orderBy examples. It could be more complete about pagination and full query syntax, but an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is only 50%, but the description adds useful syntax examples for the undocumented filter and orderBy parameters, such as 'errorIssueType = CRASH' and 'errorReportCount desc'. It does not enumerate all valid filter fields or sort keys, but it compensates well for the main schema gaps.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: search grouped crash / ANR issues for an app. It also lists the issue dimensions returned, making it clearly distinct from metric-set, anomaly, and generic reporting siblings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as reporting_query_metric_set or reporting_list_anomalies. The 'OPTIONAL Reporting API' note provides context but not usage conditions or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server