upload_apkUpload an APK to a new Google Play edit and commit it, enabling app distribution and updates.
Upload an APK to a new edit and commit it.
Disabled in read-only mode.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apk_path | Yes | Local path to the APK file | |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly discloses the consequential side effects: the APK is uploaded to a new edit and that edit is committed. It also warns about read-only mode. It does not cover permissions or failure conditions, but the core behavior is transparent.
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 with no filler. The primary operation is front-loaded, and the read-only restriction is stated as a standalone, easy-to-notice warning.
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 two-parameter tool with a complete schema and an output schema present, the description covers the essential behavior, the commit side effect, and the read-only constraint. It lacks explicit sibling differentiation and prerequisites, but the tool is simple enough that the description is mostly 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters are already described in the schema: 'Local path to the APK file' and 'App package name'. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Upload an APK to a new edit and commit it.' It also distinguishes the tool from siblings like upload_bundle, upload_expansion_file, and separate create_edit/commit_edit tools by making clear it both uploads and commits in one operation.
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 or named alternatives. The APK-specific wording and the commit behavior imply its use case, and 'Disabled in read-only mode' gives a relevant exclusion, but the agent is left to infer how it differs from related upload tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.