Skip to main content
Glama
devinwang

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ci_build_runs_get_instance

Fetch details for a single Xcode Cloud CI build run by ID, with optional relationships and fields for builds, workflow, product, or pull request.

Instructions

GET /v1/ciBuildRuns/{id} (GET /v1/ciBuildRuns/{id})

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesthe id of the requested resource
includeNocomma-separated list of relationships to include
limit_buildsNomaximum number of related builds returned (when they are included)
fields_buildsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type builds
fields_ciProductsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type ciProducts
fields_ciBuildRunsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type ciBuildRuns
fields_ciWorkflowsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type ciWorkflows
fields_scmPullRequestsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type scmPullRequests
fields_scmGitReferencesNothe fields to include for returned resources of type scmGitReferences

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It only gives the HTTP method (GET), implying a read, but does not disclose auth requirements, response shape, rate limits, or failure modes.

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?

The single sentence is short but wastes space by duplicating the same endpoint inside parentheses. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise.

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

Completeness1/5

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

A 9-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema and no annotations needs description help. None is provided about return values, included relationships, field selection, or pagination.

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% and all nine parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning, so baseline 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 a raw endpoint path repeated twice; it identifies an HTTP GET and the ciBuildRuns resource but does not state in plain language that it retrieves a single CI build run. It fails to distinguish from sibling retrieval tools beyond the URI.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternatives are given. The description neither says when to call this instance-get versus related tools like ci_build_runs_create_instance or ci_build_run_wait.

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