google-cloud-console-mcp

Create Firebase iOS app

firebase_create_ios_app

Instructions

Registers a new iOS app (by bundle id) 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": {
      "bundleId": "<bundleId>"
    },
    "name": "firebase_create_ios_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`bundleId`	Yes	iOS bundle id, e.g. "com.example.app"
`projectId`	No	GCP/Firebase project id; defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var
`appStoreId`	No
`displayName`	No

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 ('Registers a new') but says nothing about permission requirements, behavior when the bundle id already exists (idempotency/duplicate error), or what registration returns (config file, app id).

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 well-formed sentence with the operation and scope front-loaded; nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse to carry the needed context.

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?

A mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters needs substantially more description than one sentence. Missing prerequisites, duplicate-handling behavior, and the fate of the other three parameters leaves the agent under-informed.

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 50%, and the description only restates bundleId as the registration key, which the schema already documents with an example. It adds no meaning for projectId (env-var default is in the schema), appStoreId, or displayName, so the coverage gap is not compensated.

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') and resource ('a new iOS app ... under a Firebase project'), and the 'iOS' qualifier implicitly distinguishes it from firebase_create_android_app and firebase_create_web_app. It does not explicitly name the siblings, so differentiation relies on the reader noticing the platform word.

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 guidance, no prerequisites (e.g. that the Firebase project must already exist / be enabled via firebase_add_firebase), and no mention of alternatives like firebase_list_ios_apps. The agent must infer the context entirely.

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

Deploy Server