Retrieve the app linked to a specific bundle ID via App Store Connect. Use this to resolve bundle identifiers to app records for automation workflows.
GET /v1/bundleIds/{id}/app (GET /v1/bundleIds/{id}/app)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| fields_apps | No | the fields to include for returned resources of type apps |
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. The 'GET' verb implies a read-only retrieval, but the description says nothing about what resource is returned, whether the relationship can be null when a bundle ID has no associated app, or how it differs from suite-style 'relationship' endpoints.
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 entry is short but not concise in a useful sense: the path is duplicated inside parentheses, which is pure noise rather than front-loaded information. Length is low, but the single sentence does not earn its place.
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 get-to-one-related tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description should at minimum say that it returns the single app associated with the given bundle ID. That essential fact is absent, leaving the agent to infer the return shape from the URL alone.
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% -- both the 'id' and 'fields_apps' parameters are described in the schema, including the full enum of includable app fields. The description adds nothing, but per the baseline rule for high coverage, 3 is appropriate.
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 is a verbatim restatement of the tool name and HTTP path ('GET /v1/bundleIds/{id}/app'), repeated twice. It conveys verb and resource only if the agent can already parse App Store Connect path conventions, and it does nothing to distinguish this from sibling 'get_to_one_related' tools like bundle_ids_bundle_id_capabilities_get_to_many_related or bundle_ids_profiles_get_to_many_related.
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 indication of when to use this tool rather than bundle_ids_get_instance or the many other bundleId relationship endpoints. No prerequisites, no conditions, no named alternatives are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.