upload_internal_sharing_bundleUploads a local .aab file to Play Console internal app sharing and returns a shareable download URL without creating a track release.
MUTATES Play Console state: uploads a local .aab file to internal app sharing and returns a shareable download URL. It does not create a track release.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filePath | Yes | ||
| packageName | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by leading with "MUTATES Play Console state" and disclosing the return value (a shareable download URL) and the boundary of the mutation (no track release), which the annotations cannot express.
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, front-loaded with the mutation warning, zero filler. The negative clause about track releases is short and earns its place by preventing misuse.
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 two-parameter upload with no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: it is a state mutation, it returns a download URL, and it does not affect releases. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (auth scope, upload size limits) and the fact that the returned URL is publicly shareable.
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% — neither packageName nor filePath carries any prose, only a regex and length bounds. The description only hints that filePath is a "local .aab file"; it says nothing about what packageName must be (the app's application ID), nor about path format, size limits, or whether the file must exist locally on the server host. With low coverage the description should compensate and largely does not.
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 and resource ("uploads a local .aab file to internal app sharing") and immediately scopes it against the sibling upload_bundle by declaring "It does not create a track release." An agent can distinguish this from upload_bundle/list_bundles without opening any schema.
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?
Gives a clear negative condition — this does not create a track release — which implicitly routes the agent to the edit/release flow (upload_bundle + update_track) for that purpose. It never names the alternative tool explicitly, so the routing is inferable rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.