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

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

beta_groups_app_get_to_one_related

Retrieve the app linked to a specific App Store Connect beta group by ID, and choose which app fields to include in the response.

Instructions

GET /v1/betaGroups/{id}/app (GET /v1/betaGroups/{id}/app)

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": "beta_groups_app_get_to_one_related"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesthe id of the requested resource
fields_appsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type apps

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 behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not the return shape, not that it is a read-only relationship fetch, not error conditions. The tautological path text adds zero behavioral context.

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 content is duplicated parenthetically — 'GET /v1/betaGroups/{id}/app (GET /v1/betaGroups/{id}/app)' — so half the text is redundant rather than earning its place. Under-specification, not genuine conciseness.

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?

For a relationship-fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at minimum explain that it returns the app related to a beta group. It provides none of this, leaving the agent with only the raw path.

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% and both parameters (id and the fields_apps enum filter) are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 merely the HTTP verb and path repeated verbatim: 'GET /v1/betaGroups/{id}/app'. It restates the endpoint rather than stating what the tool does in semantic terms (e.g., 'fetch the app that a beta group belongs to'). An agent can infer the resource from the path but gets no real purpose statement.

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 whatsoever about when to use this tool versus the many sibling relationship getters (e.g., beta_groups_builds_get_to_many_relationship or beta_groups_app_get_to_one_relationship is the near-identical sibling). Nothing is said about required context or alternatives.

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