play_list_bundlesList all App Bundles in a Google Play edit, returning each bundle's versionCode and SHA-256 for release tracking.
Lists all App Bundles present in an edit, with their versionCode and sha256.
| 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. 'Lists' strongly implies a read-only operation and the scope is disclosed ('present in an edit'), plus it reveals the returned fields even though there is no output schema. It omits any statement about edit lifecycle prerequisites, ordering, or pagination.
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 that states the action, scope, and returned fields with zero filler.
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?
For a two-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, this is mostly adequate, and mentioning versionCode/sha256 partly compensates for the absent output schema. Missing edit-lifecycle prerequisites and any read-only affirmation leave a gap given there are no annotations.
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%, so both editId and packageName are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond restating the edit scope, so the 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 and resource ('Lists all App Bundles present in an edit') and names the fields returned (versionCode, sha256). It is distinguishable from play_list_apks by resource, 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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of the closest sibling play_list_apks, and no note that the edit must be created/existing first. The only contextual hint is the phrase 'present in an edit'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.