google-play-developer-mcp

onetime_products_update

Update a one-time product's details on Google Play. Provide the package name, SKU, and updated product data for partial update.

Instructions

Update a one-time product (patch semantics, with updateMask).

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>",
      "product": "<product>"
    },
    "name": "onetime_products_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`product`	Yes
`productId`	Yes	Product id / SKU — stable identifier you assign in Play Console
`updateMask`	No
`packageName`	Yes	Android application package name, e.g. com.example.app
`regionsVersion`	No
`latencyTolerance`	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 only notes 'patch semantics' and 'updateMask' but does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, rate limits, or mutation behavior beyond being a partial update.

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?

The description is a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core action and key traits, though it could benefit from slight expansion without becoming verbose.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description is insufficient for a 6-parameter mutation tool with 33% schema coverage; it omits return values, error conditions, and operational context.

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?

With only 33% schema description coverage, the description adds little meaning beyond the schema; it mentions updateMask but does not clarify the product object, regionsVersion, or latencyTolerance, failing to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation.

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 explicitly states 'Update a one-time product' with patch semantics using updateMask, clearly distinguishing it from other onetime_products tools like create, delete, or list.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as onetime_products_batch_update or onetime_products_create; the description lacks context on prerequisites or scenarios.

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

Deploy Server