list_anomaliesLists anomalies Google detected in your app's vitals metrics, with optional package, filter, and pagination inputs for targeted Android vitals monitoring.
Lists anomalies Google detected in the app's vitals metrics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Reporting API filter expression. | |
| page_size | No | ||
| page_token | No | ||
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail — the anomalies are Google-detected rather than user-defined — but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or time-range semantics.
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 or repetition of the title. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification as much as 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?
There is no output schema and no annotations gap, but for a paginated list tool the description omits the pagination model (page_token/page_size behavior), the meaning of 'anomaly', and any scoping by time or version. Too little for a four-parameter, zero-required-parameter listing tool.
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 only 50%: page_size and page_token have no descriptions at all, and filter is described only as 'Reporting API filter expression'. The description supplies no parameter meaning whatsoever (no filter syntax, no default page size, no pagination contract), so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 (Lists) and a specific resource (anomalies Google detected in the app's vitals metrics), which distinguishes it from raw-metric siblings like crash_rate or vitals_summary. However, it never names or contrasts with those adjacent vitals tools, so the agent still has to infer which tool to pick among the vitals cluster.
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 description gives no when-to-use context, no prerequisites, and no routing away from alternatives such as vitals_summary, crash_rate, or search_error_issues. The agent learns what the tool returns but not the situation that should trigger it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.