Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Google Play MCP

Google Play MCP

by fil-technology
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_inapp_product

Fetches details for one in-app product using its package name and SKU, enabling read-only lookup for product inspection or validation.

Instructions

Read one in-app product by sku. Read-only.

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": "get_inapp_product"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skuYes
packageNameYesApplication id (package name), e.g. com.example.app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only contributes 'Read-only' — which largely restates 'Read one'. It says nothing about not-found behavior, permissions, whether the call must happen inside an edit (relevant given get_edit/commit_edit siblings), or what the response contains.

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 the action and key parameter front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than tight completeness.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and only half the parameters documented, the description should do more work. It leaves return payload, error cases, and contextual prerequisites unexplained, so an agent would need to guess at edge-case handling.

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 in the schema, while sku has no schema description. The description partially compensates by identifying sku as the lookup key, but adds no format example or constraint for 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 states a specific verb and resource ('Read one in-app product') and names the lookup key ('by sku'), which implicitly separates it from the list_* sibling. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with list_inapp_products or naming related getters, but the verb+resource is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'one ... by sku' suggests a single-item lookup when the sku is already known, as opposed to a listing call. There is no statement of prerequisites (e.g., whether an edit context is required), no when-not guidance, and no named alternative.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools