Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
appforshare-mcp

appforshare-mcp

Official
by appforshare
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

TestFlight link on a channel

set_testflight_link
Idempotent

Adds a TestFlight public link to a channel so iOS visitors go to TestFlight while Android visitors still get the current APK through one link and QR code. Pass null to remove it.

Instructions

Add the TestFlight public link (https://testflight.apple.com/join/...) to a channel such as beta, so iPhone and iPad visitors of the channel link go to TestFlight while Android visitors still get the newest APK, with one link and QR code. Pass url: null to remove it. Name the app by bundle id (app) or project id. 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": {
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "url": "<url>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "set_testflight_link"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appNoBundle id or package name of the app
urlYesTestFlight public link, or null to remove it
channelYesChannel name such as beta, created on first use
confirmYes
projectNoProject id, instead of app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.7

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare non-destructive, idempotent, closed-world), the description discloses the actual effect: platform-specific routing of channel visitors, a single link plus QR code, and that the channel is created on first use. It also surfaces non-obvious operational requirements — human confirmation, plan tier, and required role — that no annotation conveys.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its effect, then removal, identification, and permission constraints in a logical order. It is dense and reads as one long run-on paragraph, but nearly every clause carries distinct information with little redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With five parameters, no output schema, and mutation semantics, the description covers everything an agent needs before calling: what it does, platform consequences, how to remove, how to identify the app, the confirmation gate, and the plan/role authorization. Nothing material is left to inference.

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 80%, so baseline is 3; the description still adds meaning by explaining that url: null means removal rather than an empty value, that app and project are mutually alternative identifiers, and that confirm must be true after asking the person. Channel's auto-creation is also clarified beyond the schema's brief note.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — 'Add the TestFlight public link ... to a channel such as beta' — and immediately explains the resulting dual-platform behavior (iOS visitors to TestFlight, Android visitors to the newest APK). This is clearly distinct from sibling setters like set_channel_address or add_build_link, which the description's routing semantics differentiate without needing to name them.

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?

Gives clear context for use, an explicit removal path ('Pass url: null to remove it'), prerequisites ('Ask the person first and pass confirm: true', 'Pro and Team, Developer role'), and how to identify the app ('by bundle id (app) or project id'). It does not explicitly point to sibling alternatives for other link types, so it stops just short of a 5.

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