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

google-play-developer-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

internal_app_sharing_upload_apk

Upload an APK to Google Play internal app sharing and get a distributable link for internal testing.

Instructions

Upload an APK for internal app sharing. Returns a link you can distribute internally.

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>",
      "file": "<file>"
    },
    "name": "internal_app_sharing_upload_apk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYesAbsolute path to the .apk file
packageNameYesAndroid application package name, e.g. com.example.app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behaviors, but it only states the basic action and result. Missing details like file size limits, overwrite behavior, or required permissions.

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?

Single sentence with no unnecessary words. Front-loads the action. However, it is perhaps too concise given the lack of other guidance.

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 upload tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and outcome. But it lacks behavioral context and usage guidance, which would improve completeness.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema descriptions for packageName and file.

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?

Clearly states the action ('upload an APK'), the context ('for internal app sharing'), and the outcome ('returns a link you can distribute internally'). Distinct from siblings like apks_upload (production upload) and internal_app_sharing_upload_bundle (bundle upload).

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 alternatives such as apks_upload or internal_app_sharing_upload_bundle. Does not specify prerequisites or ideal scenarios.

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