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

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ci_products_delete_instance

Delete an Xcode Cloud CI product by its ID to remove it from App Store Connect. Use this to clean up unused CI products or stop managing them.

Instructions

DELETE /v1/ciProducts/{id} (DELETE /v1/ciProducts/{id})

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": "ci_products_delete_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesthe id of the requested resource

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only repeats the word DELETE, disclosing nothing about destructive side effects, whether deletion is reversible, cascading impacts, or required permissions. For a destructive mutation this is a serious omission.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is short and front-loaded, but the parenthetical '(DELETE /v1/ciProducts/{id})' duplicates the exact same content verbatim, which is pure waste. Otherwise appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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 destructive delete with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain consequences and context. As written it is a bare endpoint string that omits what deletion entails, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke it responsibly.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents 'id'. The description's {id} path token mirrors the schema without adding format, constraints, or sourcing detail, so the baseline of 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names an HTTP verb (DELETE) and a resource path (ciProducts/{id}), so an agent can infer it deletes a CI product. However, it is essentially a raw endpoint restated twice, adding no semantic description of what a CI product is and offering no differentiation from the many sibling ci_products_* tools. Purpose is legible but bare-bones.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, no note about irreversibility, and no mention of any alternative or related tool. The description gives the agent nothing to decide whether this is the right call.

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