Skip to main content
Glama
concavegit

App Store Connect MCP Server

by concavegit

list_apps

Retrieve a list of all applications from App Store Connect to manage and monitor your iOS and macOS development portfolio.

Instructions

Get a list of all apps in App Store Connect

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum number of apps to return (default: 100)

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the core logic for the 'list_apps' tool. It constructs query parameters for limit and optional bundleId filter, then calls the App Store Connect API endpoint '/apps'.
    async listApps(args: { 
      limit?: number;
      bundleId?: string;
    } = {}): Promise<ListAppsResponse> {
      const { limit = 100, bundleId } = args;
      
      const params: Record<string, any> = {
        limit: sanitizeLimit(limit)
      };
      
      if (bundleId) {
        params['filter[bundleId]'] = bundleId;
      }
      
      return this.client.get<ListAppsResponse>('/apps', params);
    }
  • src/index.ts:1313-1315 (registration)
    Registers the handler dispatch for the 'list_apps' tool call in the MCP server's CallToolRequestSchema handler switch statement.
    case "list_apps":
      const appsData = await this.appHandlers.listApps(args as any);
      return formatResponse(appsData);
  • Defines the tool metadata including name, description, and input schema for 'list_apps' used in the MCP tools list.
      name: "list_apps",
      description: "Get a list of all apps in App Store Connect",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          limit: {
            type: "number",
            description: "Maximum number of apps to return (default: 100)",
            minimum: 1,
            maximum: 200
          }
        }
      }
    },
  • TypeScript interface defining the expected output structure of the list_apps tool response.
    export interface ListAppsResponse {
      data: App[];
    }
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 a list' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't mention pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the list returns. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core purpose 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the list contains, how results are structured, whether there's pagination, or any behavioral aspects. While the tool isn't complex, the description leaves too many operational questions unanswered for effective agent use.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'limit' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema_description_coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 ('list of all apps in App Store Connect'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_app_info' by focusing on listing rather than retrieving detailed information about a specific app. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_app_store_versions' beyond the resource name.

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 when to choose 'list_apps' over 'get_app_info' for detailed app data, or when to use it versus other list tools like 'list_app_store_versions'. There's no context about prerequisites, authentication needs, or typical use cases.

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