app-publish-mcp

google_commit_edit

Commit all pending Google Play edit changes, failing safely when changes are already in review; optionally cancel and replace the review to submit new changes.

Instructions

Commit all pending changes. By default, fail safely instead of canceling changes that are already in review.

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": "google_commit_edit"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`editId`	Yes	Edit ID from google_create_edit
`packageName`	Yes	Android package name
`changesInReviewBehavior`	No	Safe default is ERROR_IF_IN_REVIEW. Choose cancellation only when intentionally replacing a review.	ERROR_IF_IN_REVIEW
`changesNotSentForReview`	No	Keep rejected changes out of review until they are explicitly sent from Play Console.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.7.0Oct 25, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / changesInReviewBehavior

Added value: +{
+  "default": "ERROR_IF_IN_REVIEW",
+  "description": "Safe default is ERROR_IF_IN_REVIEW. Choose cancellation only when intentionally replacing a review.",
+  "enum": [
+    "ERROR_IF_IN_REVIEW",
+    "CANCEL_IN_REVIEW_AND_SUBMIT"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / changesNotSentForReview

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Keep rejected changes out of review until they are explicitly sent from Play Console.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

First observedv0.3.1Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and only partially meets it: it discloses the safe-default failure mode for in-review changes, which is real behavioral value. It does not say that committing is a consequential, hard-to-reverse action, whether credentials or review permissions are required, or what happens to the edit afterwards, all of which matter for a 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?

Two short sentences with zero filler; the core action is stated first and the default-safety note follows immediately.

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

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must supply the consequences of calling it. It never says that committing finalizes an edit into a release-ready state, that failures leave the edit open, or what a successful commit returns, which are exactly the gaps annotations would otherwise fill.

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, and the description adds the intent behind the default: the tool prefers to fail rather than silently cancel in-review changes. That reinforces rather than merely repeats the changesInReviewBehavior documentation, though it adds nothing about changesNotSentForReview or the required editId/packageName pairing.

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?

"Commit all pending changes" names a specific verb and resource, and the surrounding language makes clear this is an edit-commit operation distinct from validate/delete siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming google_validate_edit or google_delete_edit as the alternatives, so an agent must infer the boundary from the names alone.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

"By default, fail safely instead of canceling changes that are already in review" gives useful guidance on which behavior to pick, but only for one parameter. There is no explicit statement of when to commit versus validate an edit first, or when committing is inappropriate, leaving the broader routing to inference.

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

Deploy Server