Retrieve icons for a specific build ID in App Store Connect, with pagination and field selection. Use to fetch build icon assets and metadata for validation or display.
GET /v1/builds/{id}/icons (GET /v1/builds/{id}/icons)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page | |
| fields_buildIcons | No | the fields to include for returned resources of type buildIcons |
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 burden. The HTTP verb GET implies a read operation, but nothing is said about pagination behavior (despite a limit param), whether icons can be empty, or any auth scope requirements. The duplicated route string adds nothing behavioral.
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 content is a self-duplicating route string with zero front-loaded meaning. Length isn't the problem; the absence of any informative sentence is.
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 list-relationship tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least say what it returns and how to select fields or page. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer everything from the URL.
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_buildIcons. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a 3 is appropriate; the description contributes nothing beyond the schema but doesn't 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 just repeats the HTTP route verbatim, including a redundant parenthetical duplicate of the same path. It conveys 'GET icons of build {id}' only implicitly through the URL, which is essentially a restatement of the tool name rather than an explanation of purpose. It does not distinguish this from siblings like builds_icons_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?
There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, prerequisite, or alternative-tool guidance whatsoever. The agent gets no help deciding between this and the near-identical builds_icons_get_to_many_relationship sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.