app-publish-mcp

google_get_testers

Retrieve tester configuration for a specific track (internal, alpha, or beta) in Google Play Console by providing package name, edit ID, and track name.

Instructions

Get tester configuration for a 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_testers"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'Get', implying read-only, but does not confirm safety, auth needs, or side effects. The tool likely is read-only, but the description does not explicitly say so.

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 very concise (5 words) and front-loaded. Every word is meaningful, but it could be slightly more informative without losing 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?

Without an output schema or annotations, the description should provide more context about return values or usage. It lacks detail on what the tester configuration contains, leaving the agent underinformed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; the parameter descriptions are already clear in the schema.

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 'tester configuration for a track', distinguishing it from siblings like google_get_track (which gets track details) and google_update_testers (which updates testers). However, it could be more specific about what 'tester configuration' includes.

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 such as google_update_testers or google_get_track. There is no mention of prerequisites or context.

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

Deploy Server