Update fields of an existing App Store Connect account, such as name, key ID, scope, key file, issuer ID, or description. Provide only the fields you want to change.
Change one or more fields of an existing account. Provide only the fields you want to update.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| keyId | No | ||
| scope | No | ||
| keyFile | No | ||
| issuerId | No | ||
| description | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says 'Change' (mutation) but never states auth/permission requirements, whether changes are reversible, or how the account is selected. It also leaves ambiguous whether the required 'name' parameter is the account identifier or a field being changed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the purpose leads and the partial-update hint follows. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than padding, so it earns credit for structure but not a 5.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 6 undocumented parameters at 0% coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot confidently identify the target account or predict the effect of the update from this text alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It only implies partial-update semantics and says nothing about keyId, scope, keyFile, issuerId, description, or whether 'name' identifies the account rather than being updated.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a clear verb+resource ('Change ... fields of an existing account'), which is unambiguous against the sibling list of account tools (accounts_list, accounts_add, accounts_remove, accounts_switch). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Provide only the fields you want to update' gives useful partial-update semantics, so the agent knows omitted fields are untouched. However there is no guidance on when to use this versus accounts_add/accounts_switch, no prerequisites, and no mention of how the target account is identified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.