get_listingRetrieve the Google Play store listing for one language, returning localized app metadata from Play Console. Use a BCP-47 language code to check title, descriptions, and other listing fields.
Returns the store listing for one language.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | Yes | BCP-47 language code, e.g. en-US | |
| 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, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the cardinality note (one language rather than all), and says nothing about how missing languages are handled or what the returned listing contains. Given the lowered bar with annotations present, this is minimally adequate added context.
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 short sentence with the resource and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leans toward under-specification rather than fully earned conciseness.
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 simple read tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the essentials are present via the schema. However, the description never clarifies the distinction from list_listings, does not note the default package behavior, and gives no notion of the returned listing shape or failure mode when a language lacks a listing.
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%, with `language` documented as a BCP-47 code and `package_name` documented as defaulting to PLAY_MCP_PACKAGE. The description adds nothing beyond this, so the schema-baseline of 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Returns the store listing") plus a scope qualifier ("for one language"), which lets an agent distinguish it from list_listings (enumerate all listings) reasonably well. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with siblings, and the fields returned are unspecified.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as list_listings or update_listing. The agent must infer that this tool is for fetching a single language's listing rather than enumerating them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.