Google Play MCP

upload_apk

Upload a legacy Android APK for an app that still ships APKs and return its versionCode for create_release; set dryRun to validate without publishing.

Instructions

Upload an APK (.apk). Returns its versionCode for create_release. New apps must use bundles (upload_bundle); APK upload is for apps that still ship APKs. Set dryRun:true to 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>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "upload_apk"
  }
}

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.
`filePath`	Yes	Absolute path to the .apk
`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

A4.4/5.0

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 real behavior: it returns a versionCode consumed by create_release, and it encodes the policy constraint that new apps cannot use APKs. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements, what happens to a previously uploaded APK with the same version, or failure modes, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the sibling routing rule, then the validation flag. No filler and no repeated information.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description usefully explains that the return is a versionCode for create_release, and the edit/commit semantics are handled by the schema. Gaps remain around failure behavior, size limits, and replacement semantics for an existing APK, but nothing an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly is missing.

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 packageName, filePath, editId, dryRun, and changesNotSentForReview are already fully documented in the schema, including dryRun's 'ignored when editId is set' caveat. The description's only parameter mention ('Set dryRun:true to validate and discard') restates the schema rather than adding meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Upload an APK (.apk)') and immediately scopes it against the sibling upload_bundle by declaring that new apps must use bundles and APK upload is only for apps that still ship APKs. An agent can pick between the two upload tools without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-to-use (apps that still ship APKs), when-not-to-use (new apps, which must go through upload_bundle), and a validation-only mode (dryRun:true to validate and discard). The downstream purpose is also named: the returned versionCode feeds create_release.

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

Deploy Server