App Store Connect MCP

List beta testers

list-beta-testers

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a filtered list of TestFlight beta testers by app, beta group, email, or ID.

Instructions

Get a list of beta testers (optionally filter by app or beta group)

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-beta-testers"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of beta testers to return (default 100, max 200)
`filter.id`	No	Filter by beta tester ID(s)
`filter.apps`	No	Filter by app ID(s)
`filter.email`	No	Filter by email(s)
`filter.lastName`	No	Filter by last name(s)
`filter.firstName`	No	Filter by first name(s)
`filter.betaGroups`	No	Filter by beta group ID(s)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.0.6Aug 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description is not burdened with safety disclosure. It adds that filtering is optional, but does not describe default behavior (e.g., returns all testers when no filter is applied) or pagination, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loaded with the main action and a parenthetical for filters. There is no redundant information, making it highly scannable.

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 simple list tool with strong annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, it does not mention that omitting filters returns all testers or that multiple filters can be combined, which would be useful but not critical given the schema.

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% for all 7 parameters, so the description adds little beyond restating that filtering by app or beta group is possible. It does not clarify parameter syntax or combinations beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get a list' with the resource 'beta testers', which is specific and distinguishes it from the singular 'get-beta-tester' sibling. It also mentions optional filtering, adding useful context.

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?

The description implies usage as a list operation but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like 'get-beta-tester' or 'list-beta-groups'. No exclusions or alternative names are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name.

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

Deploy Server