play_get_app_detailsFetches app-wide details like default language and developer contact info from Google Play Console using a package name and edit ID.
Fetches app-wide details: default language and developer contact info (email, phone, website).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| editId | Yes | Edit id returned by play_create_edit | |
| packageName | Yes | Play Console package name, e.g. "com.example.app" |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; 'fetches' does convey a read-only operation and it enumerates the returned fields. However, it omits important behavioral context such as the need for an active edit session (implied by the required editId), permissions, or rate limits.
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 tight sentence with the verb and resource front-loaded and no wasted words. It is efficient, though quite minimal for the tool's context.
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?
With no output schema, the description helpfully enumerates the returned fields, but it leaves gaps: it does not explain the edit-session requirement behind editId or point to related edit/get tools. Adequate but incomplete for the workspace-scoped nature of the call.
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%, so both parameters (packageName, editId) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, 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 ('app-wide details') and enumerates the returned fields (default language, developer contact info). It is clearly the read counterpart to play_update_app_details, though it does not name that sibling explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as play_get_edit or play_update_app_details. The read nature is only implied by the verb 'fetches', leaving the agent to infer the context on its own.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.