firebase_appdistribution_add_testers_to_groupAdds tester emails to a Firebase App Distribution group, creating tester resources automatically for any emails that do not exist yet.
Adds tester emails to a group, creating tester resources for any that don't exist yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| emails | Yes | ||
| groupName | Yes | e.g. "projects/{project_number}/groups/{group_alias}" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It helpfully discloses an upsert behavior ('creating tester resources for any that don't exist yet'), but omits permissions required, whether existing members are replaced or appended, and error behavior for invalid group names.
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?
One efficient sentence with the verb front-loaded and no filler. It could carry one more sentence of routing guidance without becoming bloated.
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 two-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and one side effect but leaves gaps in permissions, idempotency, and behavior toward already-existing group members.
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 50% — groupName has a format example while emails does not. The description confirms emails are tester emails but adds no syntax, limits (the schema's max 999), or format detail beyond what is already structured. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 (Adds) and resource (tester emails) plus the target container (a group). The scope 'to a group' implicitly separates it from firebase_appdistribution_add_testers, but no sibling is named explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.
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 when-to-use guidance and no alternatives mentioned. The agent must infer that this is for adding testers to an existing group rather than the project-level firebase_appdistribution_add_testers tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.