Google Play MCP

list_apks

Retrieve the APKs uploaded for an Android app by package name, including version codes and binary hashes, to verify builds or inspect uncommitted changes in an open edit.

Instructions

List the APKs uploaded for an app (versionCode, binary hashes). 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>"
    },
    "name": "list_apks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does contribute the important 'Read-only' safety signal. It omits, however, any note that without an editId a temporary edit is opened and deleted — behavior only visible in the schema — and says nothing about ordering or result size.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the parenthetical and the 'Read-only' tag both earn their place. It is arguably too terse for the sibling-routing gap, but nothing is wasted.

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 list tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, returned fields, and the read-only profile. It stops short of the two things an agent still needs: how this differs from list_bundles, and the implicit temporary-edit side effect.

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 both packageName and the optional editId semantics (including the temporary-edit fallback) are already fully documented. The description adds only output field hints (versionCode, binary hashes), not parameter meaning, so the 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?

States a specific verb (list) and resource (APKs uploaded for an app) and names the fields it returns (versionCode, binary hashes). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the closely related list_bundles sibling, leaving the agent to infer that APKs and App Bundles are different artifacts.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no reference to alternatives such as list_bundles or how to drill into a specific versionCode. The only implied usage is 'call this to see APKs', which the name already conveys.

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

Deploy Server