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

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ci_test_results_get_instance

Retrieve a specific CI test result by ID to inspect status, messages, and destination details for Xcode Cloud builds.

Instructions

GET /v1/ciTestResults/{id} (GET /v1/ciTestResults/{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_test_results_get_instance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesthe id of the requested resource
fields_ciTestResultsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type ciTestResults

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'GET' but says nothing about authentication, error handling, or whether missing IDs return 404 versus empty results.

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 description is one short line, but it duplicates the same endpoint inside parentheses, which adds no value and reads as redundant. It is concise only by being nearly empty rather than front-loaded.

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 read-by-ID tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least explain the resource and read semantics. With schema coverage high but zero behavioral context, it is incomplete relative to what the agent needs to call it confidently.

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%, so both id and fields_ciTestResults are already documented in the input schema; the description adds no parameter meaning. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the work.

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?

States only the HTTP route 'GET /v1/ciTestResults/{id}', which restates the tool name without explaining what a ciTestResult is or why an agent would fetch one. It identifies the resource but does not distinguish it from siblings such as ci_build_actions_test_results_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.

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

Provides no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing guidance. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to use this tool instead of a relationship or collection endpoint.

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