Get the build uploads relationship for a specific app ID to inspect associated upload records and manage build submissions.
GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/buildUploads (GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/buildUploads)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations and no description text, so the full behavioral burden is unmet. There is no mention that this is a paginated read, what a 'relationship' endpoint returns (identifiers/links rather than attributes), or any auth expectations.
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 the content is a verbatim duplicate of the same path in both halves of the string, so the second half earns nothing. Being brief is not the same as being concise when no meaning is conveyed.
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 relationship-fetch endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies zero of the context needed: not what is returned, not the pagination behavior implied by 'limit', and not how it differs from the many sibling relationship/related tools.
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%, so both 'id' and 'limit' are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing beyond that, which lands at the baseline of 3 for a fully covered schema.
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 just the raw HTTP path repeated twice in parentheses, with no verb or resource phrasing an agent can reason over. It implicitly points at 'buildUploads' under an app, but it is essentially a tautology of the tool name rather than a statement of purpose.
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 guidance whatsoever on when to use this versus siblings like apps_builds_get_to_many_relationship or apps_build_uploads_get_to_many_related (the non-relationship variant, which appears as a sibling). Nothing tells the agent that this returns relationship linkage rather than full resources.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.