Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Play Console

Google Play Console

by AgiMaulana
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

promote_release

Promote app releases across tracks like internal, alpha, beta, and production. Copy version codes, set rollout percentage, and optionally submit for review.

Instructions

Promote a release from one track to another.

Copies version codes from source to destination. Common: internal→alpha→beta→production. Release notes/name are inherited unless overridden.

Args: package_name: Package name, e.g. com.example.myapp from_track: Source — "internal", "alpha", or "beta". to_track: Destination — "alpha", "beta", or "production". version_codes: Version codes to promote, e.g. [1234]. rollout_percentage: Rollout % at destination. Default 10%. Use 100 for full release. release_name: Optional name override. release_notes: Optional {lang: text} override, e.g. {"en-US": "New features"}. submit_for_review: If True, submits changes for Google Play review. Set to False to keep as draft without submitting for review.

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": {
      "package_name": "<package_name>",
      "from_track": "<from_track>",
      "to_track": "<to_track>",
      "version_codes": "<version_codes>"
    },
    "name": "promote_release"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
to_trackYes
from_trackYes
package_nameYes
release_nameNo
release_notesNo
version_codesYes
submit_for_reviewNo
rollout_percentageNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / submit_for_review
      Added value: +{
+  "default": true,
+  "title": "Submit For Review",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.7
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
-  "properties": {
-    "result": {
-      "title": "Result",
-      "type": "string"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "result"
-  ],
-  "title": "promote_releaseOutput",
-  "type": "object"
-}New value: +null
  3. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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 explains that version codes are copied, defaults for rollout_percentage (10%) and submit_for_review (True), and that release notes/name are inherited unless overridden. It does not mention potential destructive actions or error conditions, but the core behavior is well-covered.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a one-line summary followed by explanation and an argument list. It is slightly lengthy but concise enough; every sentence adds value. Could be trimmed by removing redundant phrasing but overall good.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description covers the main functionality, parameter semantics, and defaults. It does not describe return values or error handling, but the core use-case is fully addressed. Slightly lacking in prerequisites or postconditions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, meaning parameters have no descriptions. The description compensates with a detailed 'Args:' block explaining each parameter, including defaults, examples (e.g., version_codes: [1234], release_notes: {"en-US": "New features"}), and meaning (e.g., submit_for_review). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema.

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 tool's purpose: 'Promote a release from one track to another.' It specifies the action (promote), resource (release), and scope (tracks). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_release and update_release by focusing on copying version codes between tracks.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides common progression (internal→alpha→beta→production) and notes that release notes/name are inherited unless overridden. While it implies when to use the tool, it does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. The context is clear but could be stronger.

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