Google Play MCP

validate_edit

Validates an open Google Play edit without committing it, running the same checks as a commit and reporting any problems before you publish.

Instructions

Validate an open edit WITHOUT committing — Google runs the same checks as a commit and reports any problem. The Play-native dry run for a batched session.

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>",
      "editId": "<editId>"
    },
    "name": "validate_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`editId`	Yes
`packageName`	Yes	Application id (package name), e.g. com.example.app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the safety burden well: it discloses that no commit occurs, that Google performs the identical checks as a real commit, and that problems are reported rather than applied. It does not cover permissions/auth requirements, quota cost, or whether the edit must be in a particular state beyond being 'open'.

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 tightly written sentences, front-loaded with the key constraint (no commit) and followed by the mechanism ('same checks as a commit'). No redundant or filler wording.

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 simple two-parameter validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and the core guarantee, but leaves the return shape ('reports any problem') vague and omits prerequisites such as edit state and any auth or quota considerations that an agent would need to call it reliably.

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 50% — packageName is documented in the schema, but editId is not. The description only indirectly clarifies that editId refers to an 'open edit' (a state constraint), adding modest meaning but not explaining the identifier's format or how one is obtained.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Validate an open edit') and immediately differentiates itself from the commit path with 'WITHOUT committing'. The 'Play-native dry run' framing further fixes the concept, so an agent can distinguish this from commit_edit 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes the usage context clear ('dry run for a batched session', no commit) and implicitly routes the agent away from commit_edit when it does not want to persist changes. It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or naming commit_edit as the alternative.

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

Deploy Server