Google Play MCP

upload_deobfuscation_file

Upload R8/ProGuard mapping files or native debug symbols for a specific app build version to deobfuscate and symbolicate crash reports.

Instructions

Upload crash-symbolication files for a build: an R8/ProGuard mapping.txt (fileType 'proguard') or a native debug symbols .zip (fileType 'nativeCode'). versionCode is the build the file belongs to.

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>",
      "versionCode": "<versionCode>",
      "fileType": "<fileType>",
      "filePath": "<filePath>"
    },
    "name": "upload_deobfuscation_file"
  }
}

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 mapping.txt or the symbols .zip
`fileType`	Yes
`packageName`	Yes	Application id (package name), e.g. com.example.app
`versionCode`	Yes
`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

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the behavioral burden for a mutating upload. It discloses the accepted file types and that versionCode binds the file to a build, but says nothing about permissions, idempotency of re-uploads, or that changes must go through commit_edit; those workflow details live only in the schema's editId/dryRun descriptions.

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 action and the file-type mapping, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema fields. Nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness3/5

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 artifact-selection semantics well but leaves the edit/commit lifecycle and error behavior entirely to the schema. It is adequate but not self-sufficient.

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 71%, and the description fills the two notable gaps: it defines the fileType enum values ('proguard' = mapping.txt, 'nativeCode' = symbols .zip) and clarifies that versionCode identifies the target build. Both enum member and integer parameter otherwise lack descriptions in the schema, so this adds real meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (upload crash-symbolication files) and names the two accepted artifacts, mapping each to its fileType value. It is clearly distinct from upload_apk/upload_bundle by resource, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description says what to upload but gives no when/when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., whether an app entry or open edit must already exist), and no routing to alternatives such as upload_apk when the user actually wants to ship a build. Usage is only implied by the word 'symbolication'.

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

Deploy Server