get_reviewFetch a single Google Play review by ID, including any developer reply, to inspect user feedback and response status.
Returns one review with any developer reply.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| review_id | Yes | ||
| package_name | No | Android package name. Defaults to PLAY_MCP_PACKAGE. | |
| translation_language | No | BCP-47 language code, e.g. en-US |
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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail, that the developer reply is bundled into the return payload, but nothing about failure behavior for a missing/invalid review_id.
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 no padding and the key information (single review, includes developer reply) front-loaded. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse for the parameter ambiguity it leaves behind.
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?
With no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it only sketches it ("one review with any developer reply") without field-level detail. Combined with the undocumented review_id, an agent has enough to attempt a call but not enough to be confident about results or parameter semantics.
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 67%, and the one required parameter, review_id, has no description anywhere. The description adds zero information about any of the three parameters, so it fails to compensate for the gap and adds nothing beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ("Returns one review") and the scope is singular, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling list_reviews. However, it never names that sibling or otherwise makes the distinction explicit, so it stops short of a 5.
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 list_reviews or reply_to_review, the two obvious siblings it overlaps with. The agent must infer that a single-review fetch is appropriate when a review_id is already known.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.