Google Play MCP

upload_bundle

Uploads an Android App Bundle (.aab) to Google Play, returns its versionCode for release creation, and supports dry-run validation or batching into an open edit.

Instructions

Upload an Android App Bundle (.aab). Returns its versionCode — pass that to create_release to put it on a track. By default the upload is committed on its own (the bundle then sits in the app's library, unreleased); pass an editId to upload and release in the same edit. Set dryRun:true to have Google validate the bundle and discard it.

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_bundle"
  }
}

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 .aab
`packageName`	Yes	Application id (package name), e.g. com.example.app
`deviceTierConfigId`	No	Optional device tier config id (or 'LATEST')
`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.
`ackBundleInstallationWarning`	No	Acknowledge the warning for bundles whose install size may be too large

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does well: it discloses the commit semantics of the default path, the unreleased state of the resulting bundle, the editId batching behavior, and that dryRun validates then discards. It stops short of stating permission/authentication requirements or failure modes, which keeps it out of the top band for an unannotated mutation tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and return value, followed by default behavior and then the two mode overrides. Every clause carries information an agent needs and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 upload mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers action, return value, commit semantics, and both alternate modes, while the schema already documents the remaining flags. Nothing required to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns above that by adding meaning to the two mode-selecting parameters beyond their schema text — editId means "upload and release in the same edit" rather than just an edit reference, and dryRun is framed as validate-and-discard. The remaining five parameters are left to the schema, which is adequate given its richness.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Upload an Android App Bundle (.aab)") and immediately states the return value ("Returns its versionCode"), which cleanly separates it from upload_apk and positions it upstream of create_release. An agent knows exactly what this tool produces and how that output feeds the next step.

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 spells out the default mode of operation (committed on its own, bundle lands in the app library unreleased), the condition for switching modes ("pass an editId to upload and release in the same edit"), and the preview path ("Set dryRun:true to have Google validate the bundle and discard it"). It also names the downstream tool, create_release, so routing is unambiguous.

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

Deploy Server