Retrieve detailed information for a specific App Store Connect device by ID, including optional fields such as name, platform, UDID, status, and model.
GET /v1/devices/{id} (GET /v1/devices/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| fields_devices | No | the fields to include for returned resources of type devices |
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, and it discloses nothing beyond the fact that this is a GET. It says nothing about auth/permissions, whether the resource is guaranteed to exist, error behavior, or rate limits.
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?
It is short, but under-specification rather than conciseness: the parenthetical merely repeats the same route string and earns no place. There is no front-loaded statement of purpose for an agent to latch onto.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and a mutation-free read that returns a device resource, the description should say at minimum what is returned and any scoping. Instead it provides only the endpoint path, leaving the agent to infer the contract.
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 both the required 'id' and the 'fields_devices' sparse-fieldset parameter are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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 is essentially the raw HTTP route 'GET /v1/devices/{id})' duplicated in parentheses. It implies fetching a device by id by REST convention, but never states in plain language what the tool does or what a 'device' represents, and offers no differentiation from the many sibling get_instance tools.
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?
No guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool versus devices_get_collection or the relationship tools like profiles_devices_get_to_many_relationship. The agent must infer everything from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.