Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
app-store-connect-mcp

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

android_to_ios_app_mapping_details_delete_instance

Deletes an Android-to-iOS app mapping detail record by its ID from App Store Connect. Use it to remove an existing mapping entry when it is no longer needed.

Instructions

DELETE /v1/androidToIosAppMappingDetails/{id} (DELETE /v1/androidToIosAppMappingDetails/{id})

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "android_to_ios_app_mapping_details_delete_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesthe id of the requested resource

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it discloses nothing: not whether the deletion is permanent or reversible, not what permissions are required, and not what happens to dependent mappings. A destructive operation documented only by its URL is a serious gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness2/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The text is short but wasteful: the identical endpoint string appears twice in parentheses, so there is no front-loaded intent, just a duplicated URL fragment.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a destructive endpoint with no annotations, no output schema, and no supporting text, the description omits everything an agent needs to act safely: irreversibility, auth requirements, and effect on related resources.

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% and the single `id` parameter is documented in the schema as "the id of the requested resource." The description's path template merely repeats that {id} is required, so it neither adds nor detracts from the schema; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is only the HTTP method and path ("DELETE /v1/androidToIosAppMappingDetails/{id}"), which restates the tool name rather than describing what deleting this resource accomplishes. It does convey the verb and resource, but adds no distinguishing information beyond the identifier itself.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to delete an Android-to-iOS app mapping versus updating it (android_to_ios_app_mapping_details_update_instance) or creating a new one. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no context of any kind.

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