Fetch a specific App Store Connect actor by ID. Optionally select fields like actor type, name, or email to manage users.
GET /v1/actors/{id} (GET /v1/actors/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| fields_actors | No | the fields to include for returned resources of type actors |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing. It does not state that the call is read-only, whether the response is cached, what happens on an unknown id (404), or any auth/rate-limit behavior.
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?
It is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise, and the parenthetical repeat of the same path is pure redundancy. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose to front-load anything against.
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 simple read-instance tool with a complete input schema and no output schema, the description still omits the basic framing an agent needs: what resource is being fetched and what the response contains. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum state the read semantics, which it does not.
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 100% and both parameters (id, fields_actors) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax, format, or semantic detail about the id or the fields_actors sparse-fieldset selector beyond what the schema already says.
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?
The description is nothing but the HTTP method and path, 'GET /v1/actors/{id}', repeated twice. It restates what the tool name already encodes (actors_get_instance) without stating in natural language what an actor is or what retrieving one yields. An agent gains no distinguishing information versus the sibling actors_get_collection.
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?
No when-to-use guidance whatsoever. The description does not say when to fetch a single actor versus listing the collection (actors_get_collection), nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or a known actor id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.