google-play-developer-mcp

listings_patch

Partially update Google Play store listings, preserving unspecified fields. Ideal for editing specific attributes like title, video, or descriptions without overwriting others.

Instructions

Partial update — unspecified fields preserved.

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>",
      "language": "<language>"
    },
    "name": "listings_patch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`title`	No
`video`	No
`editId`	Yes	Edit id returned by `edits_insert` — required for all edits.* writes
`language`	Yes	BCP-47 locale, e.g. en-US, fr-FR, zh-Hans
`packageName`	Yes	Android application package name, e.g. com.example.app
`fullDescription`	No
`shortDescription`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions field preservation but omits critical details: authentication requirements, rate limits, or behavior for null/empty string values. Unclear if the tool is idempotent or has side effects.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise (one fragment). While concise, it lacks structure to clearly separate purpose, usage, and behavior. Slightly beneficial, but could be more informative without adding length.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or how it integrates with the edit lifecycle (editId context). Mostly relies on assumptions about the tool's behavior.

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 low (43%). The description adds no meaning to parameters; only the schema's own descriptions for packageName, editId, and language provide context. Other parameters (title, shortDescription, etc.) are undocumented in both schema and description.

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 'Partial update — unspecified fields preserved' clearly states the tool's action (partial update) and its key behavior (preserving unspecified fields). It distinguishes from sibling tools like listings_update, which likely performs a full update.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., listings_update). No context on prerequisites or scenarios where partial updates are appropriate.

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

Deploy Server