google-play-developer-mcp

purchases_subscriptions_v2_get

Retrieve the full state of a subscription purchase using package name and purchase token, including offer phase, order ID, price change state, and consent details.

Instructions

Get full state of a subscription purchase (SubscriptionPurchaseV2). Includes OfferPhase (2026), outOfAppPurchaseContext, latestSuccessfulOrderId, priceChangeState, priceStepUpConsentDetails.

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_subscriptions_v2_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`token`	Yes	Purchase token returned by the Play Billing library
`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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided. Description does not explicitly state this is a read-only operation (inferred from 'Get') or mention side effects, auth requirements, or rate limits. The name implies no mutation but description lacks explicit behavioral disclosure.

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 listing key fields. Efficient and front-loaded with action. However, could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet list) for readability, but still concise.

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?

Given no output schema and simple read operation, description lists returned fields but doesn't mention any constraints (e.g., token validity, subscription state). Adequate for a basic GET but lacks completeness on response structure and error cases.

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?

Input schema already fully describes both parameters (packageName, token) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond schema coverage.

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 ('Get full state') and resource ('subscription purchase, SubscriptionPurchaseV2'), and lists specific fields included. Distinguishes from sibling mutation tools like cancel, defer, revoke, etc.

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 like purchases_products_v2_get or other subscription tools. Does not specify context such as requiring a valid token or when a subscription exists.

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

Deploy Server