Google Play MCP

activate_subscription_offer

Activate a subscription offer so eligible users can access it, using package, product, base plan, and offer IDs to apply the offer in Google Play.

Instructions

Activate a subscription offer: eligible users can now get it. Gated by PLAY_MCP_ALLOW_SUBSCRIPTION_ACTIVATION.

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": "activate_subscription_offer"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`offerId`	Yes
`productId`	Yes	Subscription product id
`basePlanId`	Yes
`packageName`	Yes	Application id (package name), e.g. com.example.app
`latencyTolerance`	No	Optional propagation latency tolerance (default latency-sensitive)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the environment-variable gate (PLAY_MCP_ALLOW_SUBSCRIPTION_ACTIVATION) and the outcome (eligible users can get the offer), but says nothing about permissions, reversibility, whether existing activations are affected, or what happens on failure.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. The gating sentence is terse but earns its place.

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?

This is a mutation tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description is two short sentences. It omits error behavior, return values, and any detail on the two undocumented parameters.

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 coverage is 60%, leaving offerId and basePlanId undocumented, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all. With a coverage gap and zero compensating text, this is below the baseline 3.

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 pairs a specific verb ("Activate") with a specific resource ("a subscription offer"), which distinguishes it from create/update/delete siblings. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from activate_base_plan or deactivate_subscription_offer, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as activate_base_plan. The only contextual note is an environment-variable gate, which is a precondition rather than usage guidance.

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

Deploy Server