google-cloud-console-mcp

Create Firebase Android app

firebase_create_android_app

Registers a new Android app in Firebase by package name. Optionally specify project ID and display name to organize your app within a Firebase project.

Instructions

Registers a new Android app (by package name) 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": {
      "packageName": "<packageName>"
    },
    "name": "firebase_create_android_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`projectId`	No	GCP/Firebase project id; defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var
`displayName`	No
`packageName`	Yes	Android package name, e.g. "com.example.app"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden for a mutation tool. It does not disclose permission requirements, what happens on duplicate package name (idempotency/error), whether the project must already exist, or that it is a write operation with side effects.

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 no filler; the core action and its scope are stated up front. It is efficient, though terse enough that it omits useful context.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple 3-parameter creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, this covers the basic what but not the behavioral or return context. Acceptance is acceptable but leaves clear gaps for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 67% and the description loosely maps to two parameters ('by package name' -> packageName, 'under a Firebase project' -> projectId). displayName is undocumented in both schema and description, and no format/constraint detail is added beyond the schema.

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 (Registers/Creates) and resource (new Android app) with the keying attribute (package name) and scope (under a Firebase project). The platform qualifier distinguishes it implicitly from firebase_create_ios_app and firebase_create_web_app siblings, though it never names them.

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?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative guidance is given. It does not mention checking firebase_list_android_apps first, nor how it relates to firebase_add_firebase. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server