app-publish-mcp

google_list_images

List uploaded images of a specific type for an Android app. Provide package name, edit ID, language, and image type to retrieve the URLs of uploaded assets like icons or screenshots.

Instructions

List uploaded images of a specific type

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>",
      "language": "<language>",
      "imageType": "<imageType>"
    },
    "name": "google_list_images"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`editId`	Yes	Edit ID
`language`	Yes	Language code
`imageType`	Yes	Image type
`packageName`	Yes	Android package name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It fails to mention that the tool is read-only, what the response format is (no output schema), or any prerequisites like requiring an active edit. This is critically insufficient.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is efficiently brief, though at the cost of completeness.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not explain what the tool returns, how to paginate results, or that it operates within a specific edit context. The tool is not sufficiently documented for an agent to use correctly.

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 4 parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already communicates the parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resource 'uploaded images', qualified by 'of a specific type' which maps directly to the imageType parameter. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like google_upload_image and google_delete_image.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives, such as the need for an existing edit (created via google_create_edit) or that it requires a specific image type. The agent is left without context for proper invocation.

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

Deploy Server