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

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

apps_webhooks_get_to_many_relationship

Retrieves the webhook relationships for a specific App Store Connect app, returning linked webhook resource identifiers with optional pagination limits.

Instructions

GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/webhooks (GET /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/webhooks)

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_webhooks_get_to_many_relationship"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesthe id of the requested resource
limitNomaximum resources per page

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 burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the request path — no auth requirements, no pagination behavior, no note that it returns related-resource linkage rather than full webhook objects.

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 same endpoint string is repeated verbatim inside parentheses, which is pure redundancy rather than useful conciseness.

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 relationship-fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain what a 'relationships/webhooks' response contains. Nothing is explained, though the schema does cover the inputs.

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 the schema already documents both the id and limit parameters. The description adds nothing for either, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 merely restates the tool name as a raw HTTP URL, duplicated in parentheses. It names no verb and gives no natural-language statement of what is retrieved, and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling apps_webhooks_get_to_many_related.

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 of any kind about when to call this tool, what it returns, or how it differs from the near-identical apps_webhooks_get_to_many_related sibling.

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