google-play-developer-mcp

subscription_offers_deactivate

Deactivate a Google Play subscription offer by providing package name, product ID, base plan ID, and offer ID. This disables the offer, preventing new subscriptions.

Instructions

Deactivate an offer.

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>",
      "basePlanId": "<basePlanId>",
      "offerId": "<offerId>"
    },
    "name": "subscription_offers_deactivate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`offerId`	Yes
`productId`	Yes	Product id / SKU — stable identifier you assign in Play Console
`basePlanId`	Yes
`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

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, and the description does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects (e.g., impact on existing subscriptions), required permissions, or reversibility. The agent receives no behavioral context.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

While extremely concise (3 words), the description is too short to be helpful. It underspecifies the tool's behavior and lacks front-loaded critical details.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the lack of output schema, annotations, and incomplete parameter descriptions, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct tool usage. It is inadequate for a 4-parameter mutation tool.

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 description coverage is only 50% (packageName and productId have descriptions, but basePlanId and offerId do not). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, leaving two parameters undocumented.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action (deactivate) and resource (offer), distinguishing it from sibling tools like activate, delete, create. However, it is very brief and lacks nuance about what deactivation entails.

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 alternatives like subscription_offers_delete or subscription_offers_batch_update_states. No context about prerequisites or effects.

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

Deploy Server