App Store Connect MCP

List apps

list-apps

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves apps from App Store Connect, with optional filters for ID, SKU, name, or bundle ID to find specific apps.

Instructions

Get a list of all apps in App Store Connect

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": "list-apps"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of apps to return (default 100, max 200)
`filter.id`	No	Filter by app ID(s)
`filter.sku`	No	Filter by SKU(s)
`filter.name`	No	Filter by app name(s)
`filter.bundleId`	No	Filter by bundle identifier(s)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.6Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description carries little burden. However, it adds nothing about pagination, filtering, or the 200-app limit, and the phrase 'all apps' is somewhat ambiguous given filter parameters are available.

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 description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no fluff. It is appropriately sized but largely echoes the title, missing an opportunity to add differentiating value.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a simple list tool with strong annotations and a fully documented schema, so the description is minimally sufficient. However, details like pagination or filter usage are absent from the description, relying entirely on schema and annotations.

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% with descriptive parameter definitions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information but also does not mislead, despite the 'all apps' phrase being compatible with optional filters.

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 tool retrieves a list of apps via the verb 'Get' and resource 'apps'. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling list tools, but the resource is unambiguous.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance or alternatives are mentioned. Usage is implied by the tool name and the sibling set (list-apps vs. get-app), but there is no clear contextual direction.

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

Deploy Server