play_get_reviewFetch a single Google Play review by package name and review ID, optionally translated, to inspect specific user feedback.
Fetches one review by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reviewId | Yes | ||
| packageName | Yes | Play Console package name, e.g. "com.example.app" | |
| translationLanguage | No |
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. 'Fetches' weakly implies a read, but nothing is said about authentication requirements, error behavior when the review id is unknown, or whether translationLanguage affects the payload.
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 front-loaded sentence with no waste, but it is under-specified rather than admirably concise — it omits information the agent needs.
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 only 33% param coverage, the description is too thin for a 3-parameter lookup tool. It should at minimum clarify required identifiers and the role of translationLanguage.
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 only 33% (only packageName is documented), and the description mentions only 'by id', covering just reviewId implicitly. It adds no meaning for packageName or translationLanguage and does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 (one review) with a scoping qualifier (by id) that implicitly separates it from play_list_reviews. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with that sibling, so it falls short of the top mark.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of the alternative play_list_reviews, and no prerequisites or context. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.