play_list_apksLists all APKs in a Google Play Console edit using the package name and edit ID, so you can verify which APKs are included before release.
Lists all APKs present in an edit.
| 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, yet it only restates the operation. It does not say the call is read-only, whether it paginates, what an empty edit returns, or whether it requires the edit to be open.
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 short sentence with no redundancy and the key scope ('in an edit') front-loaded. It is terse rather than padded, though the brevity edges toward under-specification.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should convey what each listed APK includes (version code, status) and how results are ordered or paginated. None of that is present, leaving an agent to guess at the response shape.
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 100% and both required parameters (editId, packageName) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'in an edit' only loosely gestures at editId and adds no format or constraint detail beyond the schema.
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 (lists) and resource (APKs) plus its scope (present in an edit). It is distinguishable from play_list_bundles by resource type, though it never explicitly contrasts the two.
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 guidance on when to call this versus play_list_bundles or the other edit-scoped list tools, and no mention of prerequisites such as an active edit. The edit context is only implied by the phrase 'in an edit'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.