google-play-developer-mcp

onetime_product_purchase_options_batch_update

Batch update or create up to 100 purchase options for a one-time product in Google Play by providing the package name, product ID, and list of requests.

Instructions

Update or create up to 100 purchase options for a one-time product.

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>",
      "productId": "<productId>",
      "requests": "<requests>"
    },
    "name": "onetime_product_purchase_options_batch_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`requests`	Yes
`productId`	Yes	Product id / SKU — stable identifier you assign in Play Console
`packageName`	Yes	Android application package name, e.g. com.example.app

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?

No annotations present, so description must disclose traits. It mentions batch limit (100) and upsert behavior implicitly but does not detail error handling, idempotency, or effects on existing options.

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 front-loads action and key constraint (100 limit). Efficient but could be slightly more structured or include more context without bloat.

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 the batch complexity (up to 100 objects), lack of output schema, and zero annotations, the description falls short. It does not explain request structure, prerequisites, return value, or error handling.

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 already describes packageName and productId (67% coverage), but the description adds no additional meaning. The requests parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, leaving a significant gap.

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?

Description clearly states verb (update or create), resource (purchase options for a one-time product), and batch limit (up to 100). It distinguishes from sibling tools like batch_delete and batch_update_states, which have different actions.

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 siblings such as onetime_product_purchase_options_batch_update_states or onetime_product_offers_batch_update. No prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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

Deploy Server