search_error_issuesFind grouped crash and ANR issues in Google Play Console by package to diagnose Android app stability problems using filters, ordering, and pagination.
Searches grouped crash/ANR issues (Reporting API errorIssues:search).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filter | No | Reporting API filter expression. | |
| order_by | No | ||
| 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 define this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds helpful context by specifying the target resource as 'grouped crash/ANR issues.' This is adequate given the safety profile is covered by hints, but it doesn't detail complex behaviors like pagination logic or rate limiting.
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?
The definition is extremely concise, delivering the core function in a single, focused sentence without any wasted words.
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?
The tool lacks sufficient context because it does not provide usage guidelines or offer semantic depth for the parameters. For a 5-parameter search API, the description is too minimal to allow for confident, comprehensive invocation.
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?
The schema description coverage is only 40%, meaning the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. However, the description is purely functional and does not elaborate on the semantics of the input fields like `filter` or `order_by`, making it insufficient to compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 clearly identifies the action (Searches) and the resource (grouped crash/ANR issues). While it uses a parenthetical API reference, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the closely related sibling tool, `search_error_reports`.
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 provides no guidance on when or why this tool should be used over other potential search or reporting tools (e.g., `search_error_reports`). The agent has no context for selecting this tool among its many siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.