get_app_detailsFetch an app's default language, contact email, phone, and website from Google Play Console to verify or update store listing contact details.
Returns the app's default language and contact email, phone and website.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| package_name | No | Android package name. Defaults to PLAY_MCP_PACKAGE. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety and idempotency profile is fully covered structurally. The description adds only the returned field set, with no mention of auth, rate limits, or whether the app defaults to a configured package.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the return payload. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, though it omits any scoping context that could have been added without bloat.
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?
For a read-only getter with full schema coverage, complete annotations, and no output schema, enumerating the returned fields is sufficient. The main gap is the absence of any routing context relative to sibling read tools, but nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.
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% and the single package_name parameter is documented in the schema including its default (PLAY_MCP_PACKAGE). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('app's default language and contact email, phone and website'), so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like app_overview or update_app_details, but the name and field listing make the scope clear.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as app_overview or list_apps, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states the returned fields, leaving selection entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.