google-cloud-console-mcp

List store listings (all languages)

play_list_listings

Retrieve the store listing details (title, descriptions) for every localized language in Google Play Console, using a package name and edit ID to view all language-specific metadata.

Instructions

Lists the store listing (title, descriptions, ...) for every localized 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>"
    },
    "name": "play_list_listings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`editId`	Yes	Edit id returned by play_create_edit
`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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, that it requires a valid editId from play_create_edit, whether results are paginated, or any permission requirements; the only hint is the verb 'Lists'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single efficient sentence with the scope front-loaded. The trailing ellipsis ('title, descriptions, ...') is slightly vague but does not undermine the sentence.

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 two-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it names the primary returned fields and the language scope. It leaves out edit-context prerequisites and pagination behaviour, which a reader would have to discover elsewhere.

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 both parameters (editId and packageName) are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about them, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (Lists) and resource (store listing: title, descriptions) and adds the scope 'for every localized language', which usefully separates it from the sibling play_get_listing that targets a single language. It is clear but does not name the siblings outright.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement, and no alternative is named. The phrase 'for every localized language' only implicitly suggests reaching for this tool instead of play_get_listing, leaving the agent to infer the choice.

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

Deploy Server