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

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

app_price_schedules_get_instance

Fetch an App Store app price schedule by ID, including optional related manual or automatic prices, base territory, and app details.

Instructions

GET /v1/appPriceSchedules/{id} (GET /v1/appPriceSchedules/{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": "app_price_schedules_get_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesthe id of the requested resource
includeNocomma-separated list of relationships to include
fields_appsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type apps
fields_appPricesNothe fields to include for returned resources of type appPrices
fields_territoriesNothe fields to include for returned resources of type territories
limit_manualPricesNomaximum number of related manualPrices returned (when they are included)
limit_automaticPricesNomaximum number of related automaticPrices returned (when they are included)
fields_appPriceSchedulesNothe fields to include for returned resources of type appPriceSchedules

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 of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not state that the call is read-only, that it returns a single resource, or how sparse fieldsets/includes affect the response.

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 two words duplicated in parentheses, which is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is short but wastes the entire budget repeating the same path twice.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and eight parameters, the description should explain the resource fetched and include behavior. Instead it gives only a URL path, leaving the agent with no usable context beyond 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%, so all eight parameters (id, include, fields_*, limit_*) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, which merits the baseline 3 under the rubric.

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 a bare endpoint path, 'GET /v1/appPriceSchedules/{id}', repeated verbatim in parentheses. It restates the tool name rather than describing in natural language what the operation returns or why an agent would call it, which is the definition of taperantology-level clarity. An agent can infer 'fetch one price schedule by id' only by decoding the URL.

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 use this tool versus siblings such as app_price_schedules_manual_prices_get_to_many_related or app_price_schedules_create_instance. Nothing indicates prerequisites, authentication needs, or the distinction from relationship endpoints.

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