Retrieve the builds associated with a specific beta tester by ID, with optional pagination limit.
GET /v1/betaTesters/{id}/relationships/builds (GET /v1/betaTesters/{id}/relationships/builds)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page |
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, and the description does little beyond restating the endpoint. It implies a read via GET but does not explicitly describe safety, pagination behavior, auth requirements, or what the response contains.
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?
The description is a single URL with a redundant parenthetical repeat of the same URL. It is terse but under-specified rather than efficiently concise, and it is not front-loaded with purpose or usage 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?
For a paginated relationship-listing endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain that it returns builds associated with a beta tester and how limit affects results. It leaves the agent to infer relationship semantics entirely from the path.
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 coverage is 100%, and both id and limit are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter usage, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 URL path identifies a GET on betaTesters/{id}/relationships/builds, so an agent can infer it retrieves builds related to a beta tester. However, the description never states that in natural language and does not distinguish this relationship endpoint from sibling create/delete or related-build endpoints.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this endpoint instead of beta_testers_builds_get_to_many_related or the create/delete relationship variants. The agent must infer usage purely from the HTTP path and tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.