app-publish-mcp

google_update_testers

Replace tester Google Groups assigned to a specific track in Google Play Console. Provide package name, edit ID, track name, and optional group emails to update.

Instructions

Update tester Google Groups for a track

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>",
      "track": "<track>"
    },
    "name": "google_update_testers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`track`	Yes	Track name (e.g. internal, alpha, beta)
`editId`	Yes	Edit ID
`packageName`	Yes	Android package name
`googleGroups`	No	List of Google Group email addresses

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Update', implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, or consequences (e.g., whether changes are immediate, require a commit, etc.).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence with no superfluous words. It is front-loaded with the action. However, it could be slightly more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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?

For a mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens when testers are updated (e.g., replaces or appends), or the need to commit edits. The high schema coverage partially compensates, but completeness is lacking.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, meeting the baseline of 3.

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?

The description clearly states the action ('Update') and the resource ('tester Google Groups for a track'). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'google_get_testers' or other update tools, but the verb and resource are specific enough.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use google_get_testers or other Google tools). No exclusions or context are given.

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

Deploy Server