list_imagesRetrieve all images of a specific type, such as phone screenshots, app icon, or feature graphic, for a chosen language in a Google Play Console app.
Lists the images of one type (screenshots, icon, feature graphic…) for a language.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| language | Yes | BCP-47 language code, e.g. en-US | |
| image_type | Yes | ||
| 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. The description adds nothing beyond that - no mention of pagination, ordering, or what happens when no images exist for the type/language.
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 padding; the verb and both filters come first. The trailing ellipsis in the example list is slightly loose but harmless.
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 list tool with annotations carrying the safety profile and no output schema, the description is adequate but thin. It does not describe the returned shape or whether results are paginated, which an agent would want given there is no output schema.
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 coverage is 67% and the enum for image_type plus the BCP-47 hint for language are already in the schema. The description restates 'one type' and 'for a language' but adds no format or default details (e.g., package_name default is only in 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?
States a specific verb (Lists) and resource (images) with the two filtering dimensions: image type and language. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like upload_image or list_listings.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., upload_image for the write side, or how it relates to listing tools). The only usage hint is implicit in the 'for a language' scoping; there are no exclusions or prerequisites stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.