vitals_freshnessGet the date and hour for which each Android vitals metric set has data for a specified package, so you can see how current your data is.
For each vitals metric set, the latest date (and hour) for which data is available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the result is per metric set at date and hour granularity, but says nothing about return format, auth requirements, or how metric sets are enumerated.
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 sentence with no wasted words, and the key concept (latest available date/hour) is front-loaded. It is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led statement, but it is tight and readable.
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 low-complexity, single-optional-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the shape of the return (per metric set, date plus hour), which is the essential information. It stops short of specifying the exact response fields or units, so it is adequate rather than 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 description coverage is 100% and the single parameter (package_name) is documented in the schema, including its default. The description adds no additional parameter information, 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 clearly states what the tool returns: the latest date and hour of available data per vitals metric set. It is specific about the resource (vitals freshness) but does not distinguish itself from sibling vitals tools such as vitals_summary or vitals_by_version, leaving the agent to infer the boundary.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. The purpose implies you would call it to check data availability before querying vitals metrics, but that inference is left entirely to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.