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

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

apps_asset_library_get_to_one_related

Retrieve an App Store app's asset library by app ID to inspect its images and videos, with optional field selection for returned asset library data.

Instructions

GET /v1/apps/{id}/assetLibrary (GET /v1/apps/{id}/assetLibrary)

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": "apps_asset_library_get_to_one_related"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesthe id of the requested resource
fields_appAssetLibrariesNothe fields to include for returned resources of type appAssetLibraries

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
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 behavioral burden. It states nothing about whether this is a read, what it returns, auth requirements, or the 'to_one' relationship semantics implied by the name.

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?

It is short, but the endpoint path is repeated verbatim in parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than front-loaded information. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not efficiency.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a GET relationship tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits everything an agent needs: what resource is returned, the relationship direction, and any return-value expectations. The bare endpoint path is insufficient.

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 both parameters ('id' and 'fields_appAssetLibraries') are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 literal restatement of the HTTP endpoint path 'GET /v1/apps/{id}/assetLibrary', duplicated in parentheses. While the path hints at retrieving an app's asset library, it provides no natural-language verb+resource statement and does not distinguish this from the many sibling relationship tools such as apps_asset_library_get_to_one_relationship.

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, when not to, or what alternatives exist. With dozens of similar asset-library and app-relationship siblings, the agent has nothing to route on.

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