google-play-developer-mcp

details_update

Overwrite app-level Google Play details, clearing unspecified fields. Use an edit ID to set contact information and default language.

Instructions

Overwrite app-level details. Full replacement — unspecified fields are cleared.

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>"
    },
    "name": "details_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`editId`	Yes	Edit id returned by `edits_insert` — required for all edits.* writes
`packageName`	Yes	Android application package name, e.g. com.example.app
`contactEmail`	No
`contactPhone`	No
`contactWebsite`	No
`defaultLanguage`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the destructive nature of clearing unspecified fields, which is helpful. However, it omits other behaviors such as error conditions, required permissions, or whether changes are reversible.

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?

Two concise sentences with no wasted words. Front-loaded with the action and behavioral nuance, making it easy to parse.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given six parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal. It lacks context on what each field represents, validation rules, and the returned response. Should contrast with `details_patch` for better completeness.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is only 33% (packageName, editId described). The description adds no parameter-level details for the other four parameters (contactEmail, contactPhone, contactWebsite, defaultLanguage), failing to compensate for the low coverage.

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 'Overwrite app-level details' with the specific verb 'overwrite', and explains the behavior 'Full replacement — unspecified fields are cleared'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like `details_patch` and `details_get`.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 `details_patch` or other siblings. It does not specify prerequisites like needing an `editId` from `edits_insert`, nor does it mention when a full replacement is appropriate vs a partial update.

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

Deploy Server