upload_deobfuscation_fileUpload a ProGuard/R8 mapping.txt for an Android app version code so crash stack traces become readable in Google Play Console.
Uploads a ProGuard/R8 mapping.txt for a version code, so crash stack traces are readable.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | Path to mapping.txt. | |
| package_name | No | Android package name. Defaults to PLAY_MCP_PACKAGE. | |
| version_code | Yes | Version code the mapping belongs to. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write operation, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the semantic effect of the upload, but says nothing about permissions, whether re-uploads replace prior mappings, or rate limits.
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 zero waste: the action, the artifact, the key parameter, and the benefit are all packed in without redundancy.
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 file-upload tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient. It could note prerequisites (e.g., existing version/release) to be fully 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 coverage is 100%, so all three parameters are documented in the schema itself (including the PLAY_MCP_PACKAGE default). The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 (uploads) and resource (ProGuard/R8 mapping.txt) tied to a version code, plus the downstream effect (readable crash stack traces). No sibling tool does deobfuscation upload, so it is unambiguously distinguishable.
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 clause 'so crash stack traces are readable' implies the motivation for use, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite guidance (e.g., whether the version code must already exist or be released). Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.