Google Play MCP

create_inapp_product

Create a managed one-time in-app product for an Android app by defining its SKU, price, listings, and status so it is available immediately in Google Play.

Instructions

Create a managed (one-time) in-app product. product is an InAppProduct: { sku, status: 'active'|'inactive', purchaseType: 'managedUser', defaultLanguage, listings: { 'en-US': { title, description } }, defaultPrice: { priceMicros: '990000', currency: 'USD' } }. autoConvertMissingPrices fills other regions from defaultPrice. Takes effect immediately (no edit).

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>",
      "product": "<product>"
    },
    "name": "create_inapp_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`product`	Yes	InAppProduct resource
`packageName`	Yes	Application id (package name), e.g. com.example.app
`autoConvertMissingPrices`	No	Default true

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the change is immediate with no edit required, but says nothing about required permissions/auth, what happens on a duplicate SKU, whether the operation is reversible, or what is returned on success or 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?

The purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by the compact inline object shape and two short behavioral notes. Dense but every clause carries information; the inline JSON example is the only mildly heavy element, and it earns its place given the opaque nested 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?

For a create/mutation tool with nested objects, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the payload shape and the immediate-effect semantics well. It leaves meaningful gaps around permissions, failure modes, and the returned resource, which an agent calling a destructive-adjacent create would benefit from knowing.

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?

Top-level schema coverage is nominally 100%, but the critical `product` parameter is an opaque object ('InAppProduct resource', additionalProperties true) in the schema; the description compensates by spelling out the nested shape (sku, status, purchaseType, defaultLanguage, listings, defaultPrice) with enum values and micros/currency price formatting. It also explains what autoConvertMissingPrices actually does (fills other regions from defaultPrice), which the schema only labels 'Default true'.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Create a managed (one-time) in-app product'), and 'managed (one-time)' implicitly separates it from subscription creation among the siblings. It never names an alternative explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred 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 Guidelines3/5

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

'Takes effect immediately (no edit)' effectively tells the agent this bypasses the edit/commit_edit workflow used by other siblings, which is a real usage signal. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over update_inapp_product or create_subscription, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance.

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

Deploy Server