Fetch the revision state, deploy percentage, version, and flags for a Chrome Web Store extension.
Fetch the current status of an extension on Chrome Web Store. Returns published/submitted revision status, deploy percentage, version, takedown/warning flags, and last upload state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | No | Extension item ID (defaults to CWS_ITEM_ID env var) | |
| publisherId | No | Publisher ID (defaults to CWS_PUBLISHER_ID env var or 'me') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It correctly implies a read operation by using 'Fetch', but lacks details on safety, idempotency, authentication, or rate limits. The returned fields are listed, which is helpful but not comprehensive behaviorally.
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?
The description is concise: one sentence stating purpose and a list of return fields. It is front-loaded with the action. Minor improvement could be structuring the return fields more clearly, but overall efficient.
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?
Given no output schema, the description lists six key return fields, which is sufficient for an agent to anticipate the response. The tool has simple optional params; the description covers what the agent needs to know.
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% because both parameters have descriptions mentioning environment variable defaults. The tool description adds no additional parameter info, so it meets the baseline but doesn't enhance meaning beyond the schema.
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?
The description uses the specific verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'extension on Chrome Web Store', clearly indicating the tool's purpose. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'deploy-percentage' (specific deploy info) and 'get' (generic) by listing the comprehensive set of returned data.
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?
The description implies usage when an overall status is needed, but no explicit guidance on when to use alternatives like 'deploy-percentage' or 'get'. No 'when not to use' or comparisons, leaving the agent to infer.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.