Google Play MCP

delete_subscription

Delete an unpublished subscription from Google Play, possible only when it never had a base plan published. Use it to remove a subscription permanently; this action is irreversible.

Instructions

Delete a subscription. Only possible if it never had a base plan published. Irreversible.

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>"
    },
    "name": "delete_subscription"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`productId`	Yes	Subscription product id
`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

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description must carry the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose two important traits: irreversibility and a hard eligibility precondition. It stops short of stating required permissions, whether dependent offers are cascaded or orphaned, or whether confirmation is needed for this destructive operation.

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?

Three tight sentences: action first, constraint second, risk last. Every sentence carries distinct information and nothing is padded.

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 two-parameter destructive mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essentials of what and when. It remains thin on downstream effects and failure modes, which matter more than usual for an irreversible 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 description coverage is 100% and both required parameters carry their own descriptions, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional meaning about packageName or productId, which is the expected baseline here.

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 states a specific verb and resource ("Delete a subscription") and adds a scoping condition. It is distinguishable from delete_inapp_product and delete_subscription_offer by resource type, though it never explicitly contrasts with the closely related delete_base_plan sibling.

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?

The precondition "Only possible if it never had a base plan published" is a real eligibility constraint an agent can act on. However, there is no routing guidance for the case where that precondition fails (e.g., use delete_base_plan or deactivate instead), so the alternative path is left to inference.

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

Deploy Server