app-publish-mcp

google_get_review

Retrieves full details of a specific Google Play review by package name and review ID, optionally translating the review text into a target language.

Instructions

Get a specific review with details

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>",
      "reviewId": "<reviewId>"
    },
    "name": "google_get_review"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`reviewId`	Yes	Review ID
`packageName`	Yes	Android package name
`translationLanguage`	No	BCP-47 language code to translate review text into

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.7.0Oct 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / translationLanguage

Added value: +{
+  "description": "BCP-47 language code to translate review text into",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedv0.3.1Mar 19, 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 behavioral burden. It does not confirm this is read-only, describe permission or error behavior, explain translationLanguage effects, or disclose what 'details' are returned.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single short sentence with the core action front-loaded and no wasted clauses.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what review details are returned and any notable behavior. 'With details' is too vague for an agent to know what to expect from a get operation.

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 all three parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, which is acceptable baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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 states a specific verb (Get) and resource (review), and the word 'specific' distinguishes it from google_list_reviews. However, it does not explicitly contrast with that sibling or clarify what 'details' includes.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch one review when a reviewId is known. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of google_list_reviews as the alternative for browsing, and no prerequisites such as required packageName scope.

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

Deploy Server