google-cloud-console-mcp

Create Firebase web app

firebase_create_web_app

Registers a new web app under a Firebase project so you can manage it alongside other Firebase apps. Provide a display name to create the app in your project.

Instructions

Registers a new web app 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_create_web_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	No	GCP/Firebase project id; defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var
`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 full behavioral burden. It says nothing about required permissions, whether projectId defaults are handled, idempotency (does re-registering create a duplicate?), or what is returned (app id/config). For a mutation-creating tool this is a notable gap.

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 efficient sentence with no waste, front-loading the verb and resource. It is appropriately sized, though it is arguably too terse given the gaps elsewhere.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% parameter description coverage, the definition leaves the agent guessing about requirements (existing project), side effects, and return values. The description is not sufficient for a write tool of this nature.

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 coverage is 50%: projectId is documented in the schema (defaults to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT), but displayName has no description in either schema or description. The description adds no parameter meaning, 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 (Registers/Creates) and resource (a new web app under a Firebase project), which is clear on its own. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like firebase_create_android_app or firebase_create_ios_app, which follow the same pattern; the platform is the only distinguishing factor and it's already in the name.

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., the Firebase project must already exist / be linked), and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer all context from the name and siblings only.

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

Deploy Server