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

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

builds_app_get_to_one_related

Retrieve the App Store app linked to a specific build ID, so you can map build data to its parent app and related metadata.

Instructions

GET /v1/builds/{id}/app (GET /v1/builds/{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": "builds_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

D1.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden, and it discloses nothing: no mention that this is a read-only fetch, no return shape, no permission or pagination behavior. Repeating the endpoint URL conveys no behavioral trait.

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 single sentence is pure duplication of the same endpoint string twice, which is noise rather than concision. It is under-specified rather than efficiently worded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple to-one relationship GET with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum say what is returned and confirm it is a read operation. Neither is present, so an agent cannot know what the call yields beyond the URL 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% with only two parameters, and the schema itself documents 'id' and the 'fields_apps' sparse-fieldset enum in detail. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 the HTTP path 'GET /v1/builds/{id}/app' duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It restates the tool name rather than stating in words what the tool returns. An agent can vaguely infer it fetches the app associated with a build, but it cannot distinguish this from the near-identical sibling 'builds_app_get_to_one_relationship'.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many look-alike siblings such as builds_app_get_to_one_relationship or builds_get_instance. Nothing indicates prerequisites, when it applies, or when it does not.

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