Retrieves a Google Play edit session, including its ID and expiry time, so you can resume pending app publishing work using the Android package name and edit ID.
Get an edit session, including its ID and expiry time, before resuming pending work
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| editId | Yes | Edit ID | |
| packageName | Yes | Android package name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it does disclose that the response contains the edit ID and expiry time, which is genuine behavioral value. However, it says nothing about permission/auth needs, what happens when the edit is missing, expired, or already committed — the exact failure modes that matter for edit sessions.
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 the payload description front-loaded and no filler. The trailing clause 'before resuming pending work' is slightly generic but still carries the usage signal rather than padding.
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 getter with no output schema, the mention of ID and expiry partly substitutes for a return-value spec. Gaps remain around error/expiry behavior and whether other session fields come back, which the description should cover given there are no annotations to lean on.
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 packageName and editId are already documented in the schema, establishing the baseline of 3. The description adds no extra syntax, format, or constraint information about either parameter.
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 ('Get an edit session') and even names the returned fields (ID, expiry time). It is clearly distinct from google_create_edit / google_commit_edit / google_delete_edit / google_validate_edit, but it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.
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?
'before resuming pending work' implies the triggering situation, so an agent can infer this is a pre-flight re-fetch of an existing edit. There is no explicit when-not guidance and no mention of the alternative flow (create_edit vs this vs commit_edit), leaving routing partly to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.