Google Play MCP

replace_images

Atomically replace all Google Play listing images of one type for a language: delete existing files and upload the new set in order in a single edit, with optional dry-run preview.

Instructions

Replace the whole set of images of one type for one language: delete the existing ones and upload files in the given order — atomically, in one edit, so the listing never shows a half-replaced set. Set dryRun:true to upload into a temporary edit, validate and discard.

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>",
      "language": "<language>",
      "imageType": "<imageType>",
      "files": "<files>"
    },
    "name": "replace_images"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`files`	Yes	Absolute paths to local PNG/JPEG files, in display order
`dryRun`	No	Preview only: open a temporary edit, apply, validate, then delete it. Nothing is published (default false). Ignored when editId is set.
`editId`	No	Optional: an open edit from insert_edit. The change is applied inside that edit and NOT committed — batch several changes, then call commit_edit.
`language`	Yes	BCP-47 language tag, e.g. en-US, de-DE
`imageType`	Yes
`packageName`	Yes	Application id (package name), e.g. com.example.app
`changesNotSentForReview`	No	Commit option: keep the changes out of review until sent from Play Console. Google requires this for some apps and rejects it for others — set it only if a commit error asks for it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that existing images are destroyed, that the operation is atomic within a single edit, and that dryRun validates then discards. It omits permission/auth requirements and what happens when no editId is supplied (whether an edit is created and committed).

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the replace-and-delete contract, then the dryRun escape hatch. No filler and no repetition of schema text.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the critical unknowns: destructive replacement, atomicity, ordering, and preview mode. Remaining gaps (return value, commit behavior without editId) are either low-risk or covered by the rich parameter descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is already 86%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning the schema does not: `files` is not an append list, it replaces the entire set for that type/language, and order is display order. It also contextualizes dryRun's validate-then-discard semantics beyond the schema's wording.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb (replace), a bounded resource (the whole set of images of one type for one language), and the mechanism (delete existing, upload `files` in order). The scope wording implicitly separates it from single-image operations like delete_image and from broader ones like delete_all_images.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Makes clear this is the tool for wholesale replacement of one image type per language, and gives explicit guidance on dryRun:true for validate-and-discard. It does not state when-not to use it or name an alternative (e.g. an append/single-upload path), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server