Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
google-play-developer-mcp

google-play-developer-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

edits_delete

Discard a pending Google Play edit by providing package name and edit ID, removing all uncommitted changes.

Instructions

Abandon an edit. All pending changes are discarded.

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": "edits_delete"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
editIdYesEdit id returned by `edits_insert` — required for all edits.* writes
packageNameYesAndroid application package name, e.g. com.example.app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states that pending changes are discarded but omits irreversibility, effect on edit ID, permissions needed, or any side effects. The schema field note partly compensates but the description is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two short, front-loaded sentences efficiently convey the action. However, it could slightly expand on consequences without losing conciseness.

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?

For a simple delete operation with two required parameters, the description covers the basic purpose but lacks guidance relative to many sibling tools and omits behavioral details that could aid agent decision-making.

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 coverage is 100% so parameters are already documented. The description adds no specific parameter context beyond the overall purpose, meriting the baseline score of 3.

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 tool's action ('Abandon an edit') and its effect ('All pending changes are discarded'), using a specific verb and resource. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like edits_commit or edits_insert.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use (to discard unchanged edits) but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives such as edits_commit or edits_validate. No guidance on when not to use it.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools