Retrieve all builds assigned to a specific beta tester by ID, with optional pagination and field selection.
GET /v1/betaTesters/{id}/builds (GET /v1/betaTesters/{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, yet it discloses nothing: not that it is a read-only fetch, not pagination behavior (despite a limit param), and not the relationship-vs-related return shape. A bare endpoint string provides 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is short, but the parenthetical duplicates the URL verbatim, which is pure waste rather than front-loaded information. Nothing meaningful is prioritized.
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 3-parameter, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool the description should at least signal that it returns builds related to a beta tester and route between the sibling variants. It does neither, leaving the definition incomplete despite full schema coverage.
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%, so the schema already documents id, limit, and fields_builds. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which lands at the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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 only echoes the HTTP endpoint 'GET /v1/betaTesters/{id}/builds' twice, essentially restating the tool name. It does not explain what the resource represents or distinguish this 'related' variant from the sibling 'beta_testers_builds_get_to_many_relationship'.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the closely-named alternatives such as beta_testers_builds_get_to_many_relationship or beta_testers_builds_create/delete_to_many_relationship. The agent is left to infer everything from the endpoint path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.