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

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

beta_testers_apps_get_to_many_related

Retrieve apps associated with a specific beta tester ID to manage TestFlight testing groups and app assignments.

Instructions

GET /v1/betaTesters/{id}/apps (GET /v1/betaTesters/{id}/apps)

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_testers_apps_get_to_many_related"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesthe id of the requested resource
limitNomaximum resources per page
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

D1.9/5.0
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, yet it discloses nothing: no pagination semantics for the 'limit' param, no auth requirements, no note on whether this is a read-only listing, and no return shape. It is a bare endpoint echo.

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 brevity is degenerate rather than efficient: the single sentence duplicates the tool name and URL with zero informational gain, so no sentence actually earns its place.

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?

With no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description should explain scope and behavior. It provides none of that, leaving an agent with nothing beyond the endpoint string.

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 id, limit, and fields_apps. Per the calibration baseline for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate even though the description adds no parameter meaning of its own.

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 only the raw HTTP endpoint repeated twice, which effectively restates the tool name rather than describing what the operation does in agent-facing terms. It conveys the resource via the URL path (/v1/betaTesters/{id}/apps), but offers no verb or explanation of the returned collection, making it a near-tautology.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Notably, the sibling beta_testers_apps_get_to_many_relationship appears to cover the same data via the relationship endpoint, and the description does nothing to disambiguate the two.

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