google-cloud-console-mcp

Get store listing for a language

play_get_listing

Fetch the Play Store listing details—title, short and full descriptions, and video URL—for a specified language using a package name and edit ID.

Instructions

Fetches the store listing (title, short/full description, video URL) for one language.

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>",
      "editId": "<editId>",
      "language": "<language>"
    },
    "name": "play_get_listing"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`editId`	Yes	Edit id returned by play_create_edit
`language`	Yes	BCP-47 language code as used by Play Console, e.g. "en-US", "tr-TR"
`packageName`	Yes	Play Console package name, e.g. "com.example.app"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 does not state that this is a read-only operation, that it requires an active edit (editId), or any auth/rate-limit context. Only the return fields are disclosed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero waste that names the action, resource, and returned fields.

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 read tool with full schema coverage, the description is adequate but thin. No output schema exists, so the description's field enumeration is useful, but missing behavior (read-only nature, edit dependency) leaves those gaps unfilled.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (packageName, editId, language) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format details beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Fetches') and resource ('store listing') with explicit scope ('for one language') and enumerates the returned fields. It distinguishes itself from play_list_listings (which lists all) and play_update_listing, though it does not name those siblings directly.

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 guidance on when to use this versus play_list_listings or play_get_app_details. The 'for one language' phrasing implies a single-language read, but no explicit when/when-not or alternative routing is provided.

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

Deploy Server