play_get_subscriptionFetches a single subscription product by its product ID from a Google Play Console app. Use it to retrieve details for a specific in-app subscription.
Fetches one subscription product by product id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| productId | Yes | ||
| 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 burden. Beyond implying it is a read, it discloses nothing about permissions, error behavior when the product is missing, or whether it requires an open edit. For a tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.
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 with the key identifier front-loaded. No filler, though it is perhaps too terse to be useful in the dense Google Play sibling landscape.
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?
No annotations, no output schema, and only half the parameters documented. The description does not explain what a fetched subscription contains or the edit/publish context, leaving an agent under-informed for a tool in a complex API family.
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 coverage is 50%: packageName is documented in the schema but productId is not described anywhere. The description only restates that productId identifies the product, adding little over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage and no compensating detail.
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 (subscription product) scoped by product id. Distinguishable from play_list_subscriptions, but the description doesn't name the sibling list tool to make the singular-vs-list distinction explicit.
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 phrase 'one subscription product by product id' implies a single-item lookup, which hints at when to use this over the list tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.