Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
appforshare-mcp

appforshare-mcp

Official
by appforshare
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Release page of a version

release_overview
Read-only

Get a read-only release overview for an app version: iOS/Android builds, store readiness, approvals, blockers, App Store/TestFlight state, Google Play rollout, vitals, and activity timeline.

Instructions

One version of an app in one answer, like the release page: its iOS and Android builds with channels and store readiness, the release checklist and approvals of the newest build per platform, open release blockers from tester feedback, App Store and TestFlight state, Google Play tracks with rollout percentage, Android vitals (crash rate and ANR rate per version code from Google Play, Team, read only and never acted on), and a timeline of who did what. Give the version (like 2.4.0) and the app as its bundle id or package name, or a project id. Without a version it lists the versions. Read only. Team (Pro gets it without the checklist).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "release_overview"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appNoBundle id (iOS) or package name (Android)
projectNoProject id from list_projects
versionNoVersion as in the build, like 2.4.0. Leave out to list versions.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.7

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Read only' restatement adds nothing new. It does contribute real behavioral context beyond annotations: the plan gating ('Team — Pro gets it without the checklist') and that Android vitals are pulled from Google Play and 'never acted on'. That is useful, but it omits cost/latency implications of a composite call that fans out across many sources.

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 key framing ('one version of an app in one answer, like the release page') is front-loaded and the coverage list is dense but each item carries information. The single sprawling sentence with nested parentheticals makes it harder to scan than a short enumerated list would be.

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 does the job of explaining what comes back by enumerating the sections. Plan gating and read-only nature are covered. What is missing is any note on partial results — e.g. what happens if a platform or store connection is absent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so bundle id / package name, project id, and version format are already documented in the schema. The description's version example (2.4.0) and 'or a project id' restate rather than extend that. It also does not clarify how app, project, and version interact when several are supplied.

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 identifies the resource and scope: a single version's release page aggregated into one response, and it enumerates the concrete sections covered (builds, checklist, approvals, blockers, store state, tracks, vitals, timeline). It is not tautological. It stops short of naming which sibling it replaces (e.g. release_status or release_checklist), so the boundary with those tools must be inferred.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives concrete invocation modes: supply the version plus app identifier or project id, and a distinct behavior when the version is omitted (lists versions). That is clear usage context. It does not state when an agent should prefer the narrower siblings over this aggregate view.

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