Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
app-publish-mcp

app-publish-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

google_list_tracks

List all Google Play release tracks, including custom closed-test and form-factor tracks, for a package and edit to review release targeting.

Instructions

List all release tracks, including custom closed-test and form-factor tracks

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>"
    },
    "name": "google_list_tracks"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
editIdYesEdit ID
packageNameYesAndroid package name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses useful scope information by naming custom closed-test and form-factor tracks, but it does not mention permissions, whether an edit must be active, pagination, or other read-operation characteristics.

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 efficient sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, then adds the notable inclusion of custom track types.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a low-complexity list operation with fully documented parameters, the description is mostly complete. It states the resource and the noteworthy track types included, though without annotations or an output schema it stops short of describing return structure or access context.

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%, and both parameters are documented in the schema as 'Edit ID' and 'Android package name'. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters beyond what the schema already provides, 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.

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('release tracks'), and it clarifies scope by specifying inclusion of custom closed-test and form-factor tracks. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling singular retrieval tool google_get_track.

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?

The phrase 'List all release tracks' implies the tool should be used when a complete track overview is needed, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this over google_get_track or other track-related operations. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools