get_next_versionRetrieves the editable app version from the developer console and the version string suggested for publishing, helping you prepare the next release.
The editable app version on the developer console (if any) and the version string the app would suggest for publishing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectId | Yes | Project id (from get_overview). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.7Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructiveness, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful caveat that the editable version may not exist and clarifies what data is returned, but it does not describe output structure or null behavior in detail.
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 definition is a single dense sentence with no wasted text, and the core subject is front-loaded. It is slightly fragment-like rather than structured as a clear action statement.
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?
For a simple read-only tool with rich annotations and a fully described single parameter, the description covers both returned conceptual values. It does not specify the exact response shape, but with no output schema this is a minor gap.
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%, and projectId is explicitly documented as coming from get_overview. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the schema fully carries this dimension.
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 names the specific resource and two concrete outputs: the editable app version and the suggested publishing version string. It is a noun phrase rather than an explicit verb, and it does not distinguish itself from related siblings like get_publish_preview.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or comparison with alternative tools. The publishing context hints at usage, but an agent must infer when this is preferable to get_publish_preview or other version-related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.