Google Play MCP

delete_inapp_product

Permanently delete an in-app product by package name and SKU; the removal takes effect immediately and cannot be undone.

Instructions

Delete an in-app product by sku. Irreversible; takes effect immediately.

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>",
      "sku": "<sku>"
    },
    "name": "delete_inapp_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sku`	Yes
`packageName`	Yes	Application id (package name), e.g. com.example.app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present, the description does useful work by declaring the operation irreversible and immediate, which is exactly the kind of warning an agent needs before a destructive call. However, it omits permission/authorization requirements, whether the product must belong to a committed or draft edit, and whether dependent data is cascade-removed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, immediately followed by the risk warning. Nothing is wasted and the critical caution is not buried.

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 simple two-parameter destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what and the irreversibility. It still leaves gaps on permissions, edit-state interaction, and sku format that matter for correct invocation of a delete.

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 coverage is 50%: packageName is documented, but sku is a bare string. The phrase 'by sku' confirms sku is the product identifier, yet it gives no format or example for it, unlike packageName which has an example in the schema.

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 names a specific verb ('Delete') and resource ('in-app product'), plus the identifier used ('by sku'), which clearly separates it from siblings like delete_subscription or delete_base_plan. It does not explicitly call out those siblings, so it falls just 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 statement of when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., deactivate vs delete, or handling products attached to an edit) and no prerequisites noted. The agent must infer the intended situation entirely from the tool name and the required sku.

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

Deploy Server