Retrieve the individual testers associated with a specific App Store Connect build by build ID to inspect TestFlight tester assignments.
GET /v1/builds/{id}/individualTesters (GET /v1/builds/{id}/individualTesters)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page | |
| fields_betaTesters | No | the fields to include for returned resources of type betaTesters |
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 of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing beyond the HTTP verb. It does not state whether the result is paginated, what fields are returned by default, or any auth/permission requirements.
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 text is short but wastes its only line by duplicating the same path twice in parentheses, and it is under-specified rather than concise. It is not front-loaded with useful information because there is none.
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 relationship-fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies nothing about behavior, return shape, or pagination. It is wholly inadequate as the sole natural-language source of context.
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_betaTesters; the description adds nothing but is not required to per the baseline rule. 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 description only repeats the tool name and endpoint path ('GET /v1/builds/{id}/individualTesters'), restating the identifier twice with no expansion. It is effectively a tautology; an agent gains no clarification of what 'individualTesters' returns or how it differs from sibling tools like builds_individual_testers_create_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 guidance, no condition, and no mention of alternatives. With many sibling tools touching builds and individual testers (get/create/delete variants, beta_testers_builds_*), the absence of any routing signal leaves the agent to guess.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.