Retrieve search keywords linked to an App Store app by ID, with optional limit, to inspect or manage keyword relationships for ASO and metadata.
GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/searchKeywords (GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/searchKeywords)
| 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 are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. The embedded 'GET' implies a read-only fetch, but nothing is said about return format, pagination via 'limit', permissions, or the linkage-vs-resource semantics of a 'relationships' endpoint.
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?
The single line is short but entirely redundant — the same path is printed twice inside the parentheses, which is wasted space rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose.
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 endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what is returned (resource identifier linkages) and how paging works. It supplies none of this, leaving the agent to infer everything from the URL.
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% (both 'id' and 'limit' are documented in the schema), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema, but it is not required to.
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 a verbatim duplicate of the endpoint path with no prose explanation of what it does. The path does imply fetching the searchKeywords relationship for an app, but the text itself is a tautological restatement 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 on when to use this tool. Critically, the sibling apps_search_keywords_get_to_many_related exists, and the relationship-vs-related distinction (linkage IDs vs full resources) is exactly what an agent needs here, yet the description offers nothing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.