delete_subscriptionDelete a subscription product from the app catalog by providing the package name and product ID. This removes it from Google Play Console listings.
Delete a subscription product from the catalog.
Disabled in read-only mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| product_id | Yes | Subscription product ID | |
| package_name | Yes | App package name |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The 'Disabled in read-only mode' line adds one genuine behavioral constraint beyond the bare semantics. It does not state consequences such as irreversibility, impact on active subscribers, or preconditions, which matter for a destructive catalog operation.
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 sentences with no filler; the primary action is front-loaded in the first sentence and the behavioral constraint in the second. Every element earns its place.
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 2-parametter delete with full schema coverage and an output schema present, the description covers the basics. It omits the delete-vs-archive distinction that would help an agent choose correctly among siblings, and discloses no preconditions or consequences. Adequate but not complete.
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 coverage is 100% — product_id and package_name are both described in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond identifying the resource as a catalog subscription product. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries parameter documentation.
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 ('Delete') and resource ('subscription product from the catalog'), making the target clear. The 'catalog' qualifier distinguishes it from purchase-level operations like cancel_subscription_purchase. It does not, however, differentiate from the archive_subscription sibling, which also operates on a subscription product.
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 tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools archive_subscription, cancel_subscription_purchase, and delete_base_plan all overlap in domain, yet the description offers no selection criteria. 'Disabled in read-only mode' notes an operating constraint but not a usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.