google-play-developer-mcp

tracks_create

Create a new closed-testing track for a Google Play app. Provide the package name, edit ID, and desired track ID to define a custom testing track.

Instructions

Create a brand-new custom closed-testing track. The new id is set on the server. Type can only be closedTesting.

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>",
      "editId": "<editId>",
      "track": "<track>"
    },
    "name": "tracks_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`type`	No
`track`	Yes	Id of the new track
`editId`	Yes	Edit id returned by `edits_insert` — required for all edits.* writes
`packageName`	Yes	Android application package name, e.g. com.example.app
`trackConfigurations`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.2Jun 2, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that the new id is set on the server and that type can only be closedTesting, but no annotations are provided. It lacks details on idempotency, error handling, or authorization requirements.

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?

Two sentences covering the essential points; no filler. However, the sentence about the new id could be clearer to avoid confusion with the schema.

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?

The description omits return value (no output schema) and does not explain the difference between this and tracks_patch/update. The context is adequate for a simple create, but could be more complete given the lack of annotations.

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 description coverage is 60% so some parameters have descriptions already. The description reinforces the enum constraint on type, but the statement about the new id being set on the server is ambiguous given that the track parameter is required and described as 'Id of the new track' in the schema.

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 action ('Create') and the resource ('brand-new custom closed-testing track'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like tracks_get, tracks_list, tracks_patch, and tracks_update by indicating creation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

While it implies use for creating a closed-testing track, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., tracks_patch or tracks_update) or mention any prerequisites or side effects.

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

Deploy Server