Skip to main content
Glama
concavegit

App Store Connect MCP Server

by concavegit

get_ci_build_action

Retrieve detailed information about a specific CI build action in App Store Connect, including status, execution progress, and related test results or issues.

Instructions

Get detailed information about a specific build action

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buildActionIdYesThe ID of the build action
includeNoRelated resources to include in the response
fieldsNo

Implementation Reference

  • The main handler function that fetches detailed information about a specific CI build action from the App Store Connect API endpoint `/ciBuildActions/${buildActionId}`.
    async getBuildAction(args) {
        const { buildActionId, fields, include } = args;
        const params = {};
        if (include?.length) {
            params.include = include.join(',');
        }
        Object.assign(params, buildFieldParams(fields));
        return this.client.get(`/ciBuildActions/${buildActionId}`, params);
    }
  • Registers the tool call dispatching to the workflowHandlers.getBuildAction method.
    case "get_ci_build_action":
        const buildActionData = await this.workflowHandlers.getBuildAction(args);
        return formatResponse(buildActionData);
  • Defines the tool schema including input parameters (buildActionId required, optional include and fields) for validating tool calls.
    {
        name: "get_ci_build_action",
        description: "Get detailed information about a specific build action",
        inputSchema: {
            type: "object",
            properties: {
                buildActionId: {
                    type: "string",
                    description: "The ID of the build action"
                },
                include: {
                    type: "array",
                    items: {
                        type: "string",
                        enum: ["buildRun", "issues", "testResults"]
                    },
                    description: "Related resources to include in the response"
                },
                fields: {
                    type: "object",
                    properties: {
                        ciBuildActions: {
                            type: "array",
                            items: {
                                type: "string",
                                enum: ["name", "actionType", "startedDate", "finishedDate", "issueCounts", "executionProgress", "completionStatus"]
                            },
                            description: "Fields to include for the build action"
                        }
                    }
                }
            },
            required: ["buildActionId"]
        }
    },
  • TypeScript type definitions for the getBuildAction handler input parameters and return type.
    async getBuildAction(args: {
      buildActionId: string;
      fields?: {
        ciBuildActions?: CiBuildActionFieldOptions[];
      };
      include?: CiBuildActionIncludeOptions[];
    }): Promise<{ data: any }> {
      const { buildActionId, fields, include } = args;
      
      const params: Record<string, any> = {};
    
      if (include?.length) {
        params.include = include.join(',');
      }
    
      Object.assign(params, buildFieldParams(fields));
    
      return this.client.get<{ data: any }>(`/ciBuildActions/${buildActionId}`, params);
    }
  • Uses helper buildFieldParams to construct API query parameters from fields.
    Object.assign(params, buildFieldParams(fields));
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every part contributing to understanding. No wasted verbiage or structural issues.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter usage, and output expectations, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results. It should provide more context for a tool of this nature.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what 'detailed information' corresponds to in the parameters or clarify usage of 'include' and 'fields'. It marginally meets the baseline without compensating for the coverage gap.

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 verb ('get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific build action'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_ci_build_actions' by focusing on a single action rather than listing multiple. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'detailed information' includes or contrast with other get_* tools.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites like needing a buildActionId, contrast with 'list_ci_build_actions' for bulk retrieval, or specify contexts where detailed info is needed. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/concavegit/app-store-connect-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server