google-play-developer-mcp

bundles_upload

Upload an Android App Bundle (.aab) to Google Play. Returns versionCode and SHA256; commit the edit separately to publish to a track.

Instructions

Upload a new App Bundle (.aab). Returns versionCode and sha256. Commit the edit separately to publish to a track.

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": {
      "packageName": "<packageName>",
      "editId": "<editId>",
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "bundles_upload"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	Yes	Absolute path to the .aab file
`editId`	Yes	Edit id returned by `edits_insert` — required for all edits.* writes
`packageName`	Yes	Android application package name, e.g. com.example.app
`deviceTierConfigId`	No
`ackBundleInstallationWarning`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It correctly identifies the operation as a write (upload) and notes that a separate commit is needed, but does not detail required permissions, side effects, or error conditions like invalid bundles.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is very concise: two sentences covering purpose, return values, and workflow hint. No unnecessary words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description explains return values (versionCode, sha256) and the edit workflow, but lacks details on optional parameters and prerequisites like having an active edit. Given 5 parameters and no output schema, it could be more comprehensive.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 60%, with 3 of 5 parameters documented. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates the file parameter type. Undocumented parameters (ackBundleInstallationWarning, deviceTierConfigId) are not explained.

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 verb (Upload), resource (App Bundle .aab), and what it returns (versionCode and sha256). It also distinguishes from siblings like apks_upload by specifying the file type.

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 implies usage as part of a multi-step edit workflow by mentioning 'Commit the edit separately'. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or compare it to alternatives like internal_app_sharing_upload_bundle.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server