Google Play MCP

update_app_details

Update app-level details like contact email, phone, website, and default language. Preview changes with dryRun before publishing.

Instructions

Update app-level details: defaultLanguage, contactEmail, contactPhone, contactWebsite. Only include the fields you want to change. Set dryRun:true to preview the diff without publishing.

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": "update_app_details"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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.
`packageName`	Yes	Application id (package name), e.g. com.example.app
`contactEmail`	No
`contactPhone`	No
`contactWebsite`	No
`defaultLanguage`	No	BCP-47, e.g. en-US
`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

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key traits: this is a mutation, updates are partial/patch-style, and the default path publishes while dryRun previews a diff. It does not mention review status, permission requirements, or what happens on partial failure, so an agent still lacks the risk profile of a write 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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the scope and field list come first, then the partial-update rule and the dryRun preview. Every clause adds a decision-relevant fact.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For an eight-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary call path and the safe-preview path, while editId, commit-time behavior, and changesNotSentForReview are well handled by their schema descriptions. The main residual gap is that the review/publish lifecycle of the default path is never spelled out.

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 63%, and the description only restates parameter names already present in the schema (four field names plus dryRun) without adding format, validation, or interaction detail. The three contact fields are undocumented in the schema, and the description supplies no semantics for them beyond their names, so it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap.

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 plus resource ('Update app-level details') and enumerates the exact fields it touches (defaultLanguage, contactEmail, contactPhone, contactWebsite), which is enough to separate it from listing- or product-level updaters like update_listing or update_inapp_product without opening the schema. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so sibling differentiation is implied by the field list rather than stated.

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?

It gives two concrete usage rules: a partial-update convention ('Only include the fields you want to change') and a preview path ('Set dryRun:true to preview the diff without publishing'). What is missing is any mention of when to prefer the editId/commit_edit batching flow versus a direct publish; that guidance exists only inside the schema's editId description.

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

Deploy Server