play_get_editFetches the status of an existing Google Play Console edit to check if it has expired. Requires package name and edit ID.
Fetches the status of an existing edit (e.g. to check it hasn't expired).
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It doesn't disclose whether the operation is read-only (implied by 'fetches' but not stated), what happens if the edit has expired, permissions needed, or the response shape. For a read-only getter this leaves substantial gaps.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the action and clarifies intent. No wasted words, though the parenthetical could be tighter.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a simple 2-param getter, the description should do more to explain behavior — especially the expired-edit case it alludes to — and clarify how it relates to validate/commit siblings. It is currently too thin for a tool that operates within the multi-step edit lifecycle.
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%, with both parameters documented (editId referencing play_create_edit, packageName with an example). The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, so baseline 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 (status of an existing edit) with a parenthetical clarifying intent (check it hasn't expired). It is distinguishable from siblings like play_validate_edit and play_commit_edit, though it doesn't explicitly name them for contrast.
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 parenthetical '(e.g. to check it hasn't expired)' implies the primary use case, giving implicit usage signals. However, it doesn't state when to use this versus alternatives like play_validate_edit, nor does it describe prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing edit).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.