firebase_appdistribution_get_releaseFetches a single Firebase App Distribution release by full resource name, enabling inspection of build details and release status.
Fetches one release by its full resource name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| releaseName | Yes | Full release resource name, format "projects/{project_number}/apps/{app_id}/releases/{release_id}" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Fetches' clearly signals a read-only, non-destructive operation, which covers the most important behavioral trait. It says nothing about error behavior (e.g., missing release), permission requirements, or what the response contains.
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 filler. It is appropriately sized for a trivial one-parameter getter, though it is so terse that it leaves obvious questions unanswered.
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 single-resource getter with one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is close to adequate. It omits any hint of what the returned release object contains and what happens on an invalid or nonexistent resource name, which a getter could reasonably mention.
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's format is fully documented in the schema. The description's 'full resource name' only echoes that documentation, adding no syntax or example beyond it, so the baseline of 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 (fetches) and resource (one release) scoped to a single item, which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling firebase_appdistribution_list_releases. It stops short of explicitly naming that sibling or any other alternative, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 phrase 'by its full resource name' implies you must already hold the full resource path, which is a soft usage cue. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer the list tool, and no prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.