google-cloud-console-mcp

Create App Distribution tester group

firebase_appdistribution_create_group

Creates a new tester group for Firebase App Distribution under a specified project. Use it to organize testers; provide displayName, with optional groupId and projectId.

Instructions

Creates a new tester group under a Firebase project.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "displayName": "<displayName>"
    },
    "name": "firebase_appdistribution_create_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`groupId`	No	Optional alias; auto-generated from displayName if omitted
`projectId`	No
`displayName`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a mutation but says nothing about required permissions, behavior on duplicate displayName, whether an existing group is reused or errors, or idempotency — all relevant for a group-creation endpoint.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than tightness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and two undocumented parameters, the description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what a successful creation returns, what failures to expect, or what project context is required.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 33%: groupId is documented ('optional alias; auto-generated from displayName if omitted'), but projectId and displayName have no schema descriptions. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Creates a new tester group under a Firebase project'), which is clear on its own. It does not distinguish itself from the near-miss sibling firebase_appdistribution_delete_group or list_groups beyond the inherent verb difference, 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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as firebase_appdistribution_add_testers_to_group (create the group vs. add testers) or when a group already exists. No prerequisites or context conditions are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server