List an app's builds with processing states to check if a build is ready (VALID) to attach to a version or still processing.
List an app's builds and the processing state of each.
processingState PROCESSING means the build cannot be attached to a version yet; VALID means it is ready to use.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| app_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only list operation and explains the meaning of PROCESSING vs VALID, which is useful domain context, but it omits auth requirements, pagination behavior, and result ordering.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is short, front-loaded with the core action, and then gives a focused explanation of processingState. Every sentence earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list tool with an output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the key output-state semantics. However, with no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, it leaves important invocation details such as parameter meaning and pagination unaddressed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not document either parameter. It only implies that an app is selected, without clarifying app_id syntax or what limit controls.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a clear verb+resource ('List an app's builds') and adds the processing-state concept. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the Apple-specific scope is clear enough to distinguish it from generic build tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives such as eas_build_list or apple_list_versions. It only explains how to interpret processingState once results are returned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.