Google Play MCP

bulk_upsert_listings

Create or update Google Play store listings for many languages in one atomic edit; preview diffs with dry-run before publishing.

Instructions

Create or update store listings for MANY languages in one atomic edit. Pass listings as { 'en-US': { title, shortDescription, fullDescription, video }, 'de-DE': {...} }. Existing languages are patched (only given fields change); new ones are created. All languages go live together or not at all. Set dryRun:true to preview every diff and validate without publishing.

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>",
      "listings": "<listings>"
    },
    "name": "bulk_upsert_listings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dryRun`	No	Preview only: open a temporary edit, apply, validate, then delete it. Nothing is published (default false). Ignored when editId is set.
`editId`	No	Optional: an open edit from insert_edit. The change is applied inside that edit and NOT committed — batch several changes, then call commit_edit.
`listings`	Yes	Map of language → { title?, shortDescription?, fullDescription?, video? }
`packageName`	Yes	Application id (package name), e.g. com.example.app
`changesNotSentForReview`	No	Commit option: keep the changes out of review until sent from Play Console. Google requires this for some apps and rejects it for others — set it only if a commit error asks for it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does disclose the critical behaviors: partial patching (only supplied fields change), creation of missing languages, and all-or-nothing publish atomicity. It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens to the edit when editId is not supplied, which are material gaps for a mutation tool.

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?

Four sentences, all load-bearing: purpose, data shape, patch/create semantics, atomicity, and the dryRun escape hatch. The most decision-relevant facts (many languages, atomic, dryRun) are front-loaded with no filler.

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 5-parameter mutation with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the semantics an agent most needs to call it safely. It leaves the commit/return behavior implicit (what happens when editId is absent, what the response contains), which is the remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description still earns a bump by showing the exact listings map shape and, more importantly, by explaining the patch-versus-create semantics of that parameter, which the schema does not convey. The dryRun explanation reinforces the schema description rather than extending it.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create or update') plus resource ('store listings') and adds a clear scope qualifier ('for MANY languages in one atomic edit'), which implicitly separates it from single-language read/delete siblings. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative (e.g. get_listing, delete_listing), so the differentiation is inferential rather than stated.

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?

It gives concrete invocation guidance - use the language-keyed map for batching, set dryRun:true to preview, and rely on patch semantics for existing languages. It does not say when to prefer this over a per-language path or when to check existing listings first, so exclusions are absent.

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

Deploy Server