list_releasesLists releases on a specific track, or across every track when no track is given, for an Android package in Google Play Console.
Lists releases on one track, or on every track when no track is given.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track | No | 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the all-tracks fallback behavior, which is real added context, but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or result volume for an open-world list call.
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; the default behavior is stated immediately and nothing needs trimming or reordering.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description could reasonably say what a 'release' entry contains or how results are ordered/limited; instead it stops at scoping. For a read-only two-parameter list tool this is adequate but leaves the return shape entirely to inference.
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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, including track values and the PLAY_MCP_PACKAGE default. The description's only added meaning is the implicit 'no track = every track' behavior, so the 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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ("Lists releases") and clarifies scope: one track, or all tracks when no track is supplied. That scope statement distinguishes it from the track-oriented siblings, but it never names or contrasts with relatives like release_status or list_tracks, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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?
It conveys the key calling condition: pass a track to scope to one track, omit it to get everything. That is useful implied guidance, but there is no statement of when to prefer this over alternatives such as release_status, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.