Google Play MCP

get_testers

Retrieve tester Google Groups for a Play testing track (internal, alpha, beta, custom) to check build access. Read-only; provide package name and track.

Instructions

Read the tester Google Groups for a testing track (internal, alpha, beta or custom). 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>",
      "track": "<track>"
    },
    "name": "get_testers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`track`	Yes	Track name: internal, alpha (closed testing), beta (open testing), production, a custom closed-testing track name, or a form-factor track such as wear:production
`editId`	No	Optional: read from this open edit (to see uncommitted changes). Without it a temporary edit is opened and deleted.
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description does carry the key safety fact by stating 'Read-only', which prevents an agent from assuming a mutation. However, it omits other behavioral context such as permission requirements or the side effect (documented only in the schema) that a temporary edit may be opened and deleted when editId is absent.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The parenthetical track enumeration is slightly redundant with the schema's track description, which keeps it from a 5.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the definition is functional but never indicates what the call returns (e.g., group email addresses or member lists), and there is no output schema to fill that gap. An agent knows how to call it but not what to expect back.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters in detail, including the track variants and editId behavior. The description's parenthetical track list adds little beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb+resource ('Read the tester Google Groups') scoped to a testing track, with the track kinds enumerated. An agent can distinguish it from the sibling update_testers by the read vs. write verb, though it never names that sibling explicitly.

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: 'for a testing track' tells the agent the context, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion of alternatives such as get_track or update_testers, and no prerequisites mentioned.

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

Deploy Server