Retrieve the builds associated with a specific beta group by ID to inspect TestFlight distribution and related build details.
GET /v1/betaGroups/{id}/builds (GET /v1/betaGroups/{id}/builds)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page | |
| fields_builds | No | the fields to include for returned resources of type builds |
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, and it discloses nothing: no pagination semantics, no auth requirements, no indication of what is returned or how results are ordered. A raw path string is not behavioral disclosure.
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 shortness here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency. The duplicated path in parentheses contributes nothing and the sentence is not front-loaded with any actionable information.
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?
A paginated collection endpoint with sparse-fieldset support and no annotations or output schema, and the description supplies none of the missing context. An agent cannot determine expected return shape, pagination behavior, or correct usage from this definition.
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% and all three parameters (id, limit, fields_builds) are documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, but it also does not need 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 restatement of the endpoint path, with the path duplicated in parentheses. It conveys no purpose beyond what the tool name (beta_groups_builds_get_to_many_related) already encodes, and does not distinguish this 'related' variant from the sibling beta_groups_builds_get_to_many_relationship which returns relationship identifiers rather than full build resources.
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 call this versus the many sibling listing tools, nor any prerequisite or context. The agent is left to infer everything from the naming convention alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.