playstore-release-mcp

play_upload_bundle

Upload a signed Android App Bundle (.aab) to Google Play and get the resulting versionCode, ready to pass to a track release.

Instructions

Upload a signed .aab (Android App Bundle) to Play — the bundle must already be built and signed (e.g. by eas build -p android). Returns the resulting versionCode; pass it to play_release_to_track to actually ship it to 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": {
      "aab_path": "<aab_path>"
    },
    "name": "play_upload_bundle"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`aab_path`	Yes	Local filesystem path to the .aab file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns the versionCode and that it does not ship to a track, which is important behavioral context. However, it does not mention any side effects like whether uploading overwrites existing bundles or if special permissions are required, so it is not fully transparent.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, then providing essential follow-up details (return value and next step). Every sentence earns its place; no fluff.

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 simple one-parameter tool, the description covers the action, prerequisite, return value, and relationship to the release flow. No output schema exists, but the description explains the output. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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?

The schema covers the only parameter (aab_path) with 100% description coverage. The description mentions '.aab' and the path, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema already states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with 'Upload a signed .aab (Android App Bundle) to Play', which is a specific verb+resource and clearly differentiates from siblings like play_release_to_track (which ships to a track). It unambiguously states the tool's function.

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?

The description explicitly states a prerequisite ('must already be built and signed') and provides an alternative/next step ('pass it to play_release_to_track to actually ship it to a track'), giving clear when-to-use context and an explicit alternative.

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

Deploy Server