Google Play MCP

update_testers

Set or replace the Google Groups used as testers for a Play testing track, and validate changes with dry-run before publishing.

Instructions

Set the tester Google Groups (group email addresses) for a testing track. This REPLACES the list. Individual tester emails are managed in Play Console, not through the API. Set dryRun:true to validate 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>",
      "track": "<track>",
      "googleGroups": "<googleGroups>"
    },
    "name": "update_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
`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
`googleGroups`	Yes	Google Group email addresses
`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

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important behavioral trait: the call replaces the entire group list rather than appending. It also flags the validation-only mode and the scope limit on individual emails. It omits any statement about permissions 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?

Three short sentences, with the replacement warning front-loaded where an agent will see it. The dryRun sentence largely duplicates the schema text, which is the only wasted wording.

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 a six-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers the destructive replace behavior, validation mode, and scope boundary, while editId and changesNotSentForReview are handled in the schema. Missing permission/error context is a minor gap given the full schema coverage.

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 100%, so every parameter already has documentation and the baseline is 3. The description restates dryRun semantics already present in the schema and adds no new detail about track naming, editId, or changesNotSentForReview.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Set the tester Google Groups ... for a testing track") and immediately qualifies it with REPLACES semantics, which separates it from a read like get_testers. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as update_track, but the 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 Guidelines4/5

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

It states a boundary case (individual tester emails are managed in Play Console, not through the API) and offers the dryRun:true validation path as an alternative to publishing. It stops short of saying when to batch inside an edit versus committing directly, which the schema partially covers via editId.

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

Deploy Server