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

google-play-developer-mcp

by devinwang

purchases_products_v2_get

Verify the current state of a one-time product purchase with its purchase token and package name, supporting multiple purchase options and offers.

Instructions

Get current state of a one-time product purchase. Supports multiple purchase options + offers (replaces legacy purchases.products).

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>",
      "token": "<token>"
    },
    "name": "purchases_products_v2_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tokenYesPurchase token returned by the Play Billing library
packageNameYesAndroid application package name, e.g. com.example.app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry the burden. It states 'Get current state' indicating a read operation, but does not disclose potential errors (e.g., invalid token), authentication requirements, or rate limits. Aspect is minimal but not misleading.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two sentences with no redundancy. First sentence communicates core purpose, second adds valuable context about legacy replacement and feature support. Efficient and well-structured.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple get tool with two well-described parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and legacy context. It could mention that it is read-only or prerequisites, but overall is sufficiently complete.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds context about purchase options and offers but does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get current state' and specifies the resource 'one-time product purchase'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning support for multiple purchase options and offers, and notes it replaces a legacy tool, making its scope precise.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage for retrieving purchase state but lacks explicit when-to-use or alternatives. It mentions it replaces legacy but does not elaborate on scenarios where sibling tools like onetime_products_get or purchases_subscriptions_v2_get might be more appropriate.

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