App Store Connect MCP Server

create_analytics_report_request

Create an analytics report request for an app, choosing between ongoing daily reports or a single snapshot. Reports generate after submission.

Instructions

Create a new analytics report request for an app. Use ONGOING for continuous reports or ONE_TIME_SNAPSHOT for a single snapshot. Reports take time to generate after creation.

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>",
      "accessType": "<accessType>"
    },
    "name": "create_analytics_report_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`appId`	Yes	The App Store Connect app ID
`accessType`	Yes	ONGOING for continuous daily reports, ONE_TIME_SNAPSHOT for a single point-in-time report

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0May 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must bear the transparency burden. It discloses that reports take time to generate (async behavior). However, it does not mention authentication requirements, side effects, or what the response includes, so it is adequate but not thorough.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Create a new analytics report request'), followed by key parameter choices and behavioral note. No superfluous words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple creation tool with 2 params and no output schema, the description covers the operation, parameter selection, and a key behavioral note (async generation). It lacks mention of return values or permissions, but is largely sufficient given context.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description's parameter guidance ('Use ONGOING for continuous reports or ONE_TIME_SNAPSHOT for a single snapshot') largely echoes the schema descriptions, adding minimal new meaning.

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 'create' and resource 'analytics report request', and distinguishes between two report types. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delete or get, though the name and context imply creation.

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 guidance on choosing between ONGOING and ONE_TIME_SNAPSHOT, but lacks guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative tools (e.g., get, list, delete) or any prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server