Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
appforshare-mcp

appforshare-mcp

Official
by appforshare
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Pause or limit an install link

set_link_controls
Idempotent

Change an install link's controls to pause or resume installs, schedule open and close dates, or set an install limit without affecting existing installs.

Instructions

Change the controls of one build's install link: pause or resume it, set a start time before which it takes no installs (testers see when it opens and can ask for one email then; ISO date time, null opens it now), a stop date after which it takes no installs (ISO date time, null removes it), or an install limit (null removes it). The start must be before the stop date. Leave out what should stay as it is. Builds already installed are not affected. Ask the person first and pass confirm: true. Pro and Team, Developer role.

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>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "set_link_controls"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
buildYesBuild id or the slug of its install link
pausedNotrue pauses the link, false turns it back on
stopAtNoISO 8601 date time, for example 2026-12-31T23:59:59Z, or null for no stop date
confirmYes
startAtNoOpens for installs at this ISO 8601 date time, for example 2026-12-01T09:00:00Z, or null to open now
maxInstallsNoInstall limit, or null for none

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.7

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=true), the description discloses the blast radius ('Builds already installed are not affected'), the validation constraint ('The start must be before the stop date'), the null-as-reset semantics, the partial-update behavior, and the human-confirmation and plan/role prerequisites. This is exactly the kind of side-effect and precondition detail annotations cannot convey.

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 action and each mutable field are front-loaded in the first sentence, and prerequisites are grouped at the end. The opening sentence is long and runs several parenthetical clauses together, which costs a little readability, but every clause carries information and nothing is redundant with the schema.

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 mutating, idempotent tool with no output schema, the description covers preconditions, side-effect scope, validation rules, and null/omission semantics — essentially everything needed to call it correctly. The only omission is any statement of what a successful call returns or how errors surface.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 83%, so a baseline of 3 applies, and the description clears that bar by adding meaning the schema lacks: null for startAt means 'open now' (schema says 'to open now' but the description frames the interaction), null for stopAt/maxInstalls 'removes it', and crucially 'Leave out what should stay as it is', which defines omitted-parameter semantics not captured anywhere in the schema.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource, 'Change the controls of one build's install link', then enumerates exactly which controls (pause/resume, start time, stop date, install limit). It is clearly distinct from add/remove/list link tools by being an in-place modification, but it does not explicitly name or contrast a sibling (e.g., set_testflight_link), leaving that differentiation to inference.

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 usage context: a confirmation step ('Ask the person first and pass confirm: true') and eligibility constraints ('Pro and Team, Developer role'). It also states a partial-update rule ('Leave out what should stay as it is'). What's missing is any explicit when-not guidance or named alternative tool for adjacent operations.

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