Retrieve recent written Google Play reviews for a specified app package by limit and language; use pagination tokens to fetch additional reviews.
Read recent written reviews. Follow tokenPagination.nextPageToken for more.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| package | Yes | ||
| language | No | ||
| page_token | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavior: pagination via tokenPagination.nextPageToken. It omits rate limits, ordering, or recency definition, so it is modestly additive.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the core action and the pagination directive front-loaded in order of importance.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with 0% schema coverage the description should document the required 'package' filter and the meaning of limit/language. As written, an agent cannot tell what 'package' refers to or how filtering works.
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 0% for 4 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and fails: it explains none of limit, package, language, or page_token semantics. Only the pagination concept is loosely hinted at via the nextPageToken mention.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('recent written reviews'), which clearly distinguishes it from the singular get_review sibling. It doesn't explicitly name siblings or scope limits, but the action is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus get_review, nor on what the 'package'/'language' filters do. The pagination hint implies follow-up calls but doesn't state when to stop or how filtering interacts with results.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.