app-publish-mcp

google_get_country_availability

Retrieve country availability for an Android app release track (production, beta, alpha, internal) by specifying package name and edit ID.

Instructions

Get country availability for a specific track

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>",
      "track": "<track>"
    },
    "name": "google_get_country_availability"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`track`	Yes	Track name (e.g. production, beta, alpha, internal)
`editId`	Yes	Edit ID
`packageName`	Yes	Android package name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description implies a read-only operation ('get'), but without annotations, it doesn't disclose potential side effects, rate limits, or prerequisites. Additional behavioral context (e.g., return format) is missing, though the core read-only nature is clear.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose effectively, though a bit more detail could be added without sacrificing conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does not explain what the tool returns. It also lacks context about when to use this specific tool among siblings. The simplicity of the tool (3 required params) reduces the burden, but the gaps are notable.

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?

All three parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'country availability' for a specific track. It differentiates from siblings like google_get_track and google_get_details, but the meaning of 'country availability' could be more explicit (e.g., which countries are allowed).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools (e.g., google_get_track, google_get_details, apple_list_availability), the lack of usage context makes it harder for an AI agent to select correctly.

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

Deploy Server