appforshare-mcp

Official

by appforshare

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Hybrid

Who installed a build

build_installs

Read-only

Retrieve up to 200 recent installs for a specific build, with device, OS, model, country, tester details, and totals by device and country.

Instructions

Installs of one build, newest first (up to 200): device, OS version, model, country and the tester when known, with totals by device and country. Read only.

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": {
      "build": "<build>"
    },
    "name": "build_installs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`build`	Yes	Build id or the slug of its install link

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.7Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only and closed-world, so the description focuses on added behavior: newest-first ordering, a 200-row cap, and aggregate totals by device and country. The 200 cap is the kind of limit an agent needs and would not otherwise know; only pagination behavior past the cap is left unstated.

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?

Two compact sentences, scope and returned fields front-loaded, ordering and cap stated inline, and the read-only constraint as a short trailing clause. No filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields, ordering, cap, and aggregates, which is close to complete for a single-parameter read tool. It stops short of explaining what happens beyond 200 rows or whether totals cover all installs or only the returned page.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, so the schema already explains that build accepts an id or install-link slug. The description adds only the connotation of a single build, which is a marginal contribution.

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 states a specific resource (installs of one build) and even enumerates the returned fields, so the agent knows exactly what data comes back. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as build_install_issues, but the scope is unambiguous on its own.

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?

Usage is only implied: 'Installs of one build' tells the agent what situation fits, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. Adequate but leaves routing entirely to inference.

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