Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
App Store Connect MCP Server

App Store Connect MCP Server

by Fourni-j
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

get_app_store_versions

Retrieve app versions and their App Store status to correlate releases with performance metrics.

Instructions

List app versions with their App Store state (READY_FOR_SALE, IN_REVIEW, etc.), creation date, and platform. Useful to correlate releases with metric changes. Requires appId from list_apps.

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": {
      "appId": "<appId>"
    },
    "name": "get_app_store_versions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIdYesApp Store Connect app ID (from list_apps)
limitNoMax number of versions to return

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It implies read-only via 'List' but does not explicitly state that, nor does it mention authorization needs, error behavior, or rate limits. The limit parameter's behavior is not elaborated.

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 brief with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. It is efficient, though could be more structured with separate usage and output sections.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description partially covers what the tool returns (state, date, platform) but omits details on response structure, pagination, and error handling. It is adequate for basic use but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds value by indicating the source of appId ('from list_apps'), but does not enhance the limit parameter beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the tool lists app versions with specific fields (state, date, platform) and specifies the source for the required appId. It is distinct from sibling tools which focus on analytics, metadata, or reviews.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a use case ('correlate releases with metric changes') and notes the prerequisite (appId from list_apps), but does not provide guidance on when not to use this tool or compare to alternatives.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools