get_trackRetrieve one Google Play track with its complete release objects as Google reports them, for a specified package and track name.
Returns one track with its full release objects, as Google reports them.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | Yes | Track: internal, alpha, beta, production, or a custom/form-factor track (e.g. wear:production). | |
| 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 safety is covered structurally. The description adds that the track is returned with its full release objects as Google reports them, which is useful but thin—no note on error behavior for unknown tracks or missing packages.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every phrase (one track, full release objects, as Google reports them) earns its place.
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-only getter with full annotation coverage and complete parameter documentation, the description is sufficient; stating what the return contains compensates for the absent output schema. A little more on the calling context would make it complete.
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%; the track pattern and package_name default are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Returns one track") and adds scope ("with its full release objects"), which distinguishes it from the sibling list_tracks without naming it. Clear, though it does not explicitly route against list_releases or list_tracks.
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?
The singular "one track" implies fetching a single track's detail versus listing, which is usable guidance. But it never states when to prefer this over list_tracks or release_status, and gives no conditions or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.