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

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

game_center_achievement_images_delete_instance

Deletes a Game Center achievement image by ID through App Store Connect, removing that image resource from an achievement configuration.

Instructions

[DEPRECATED] DELETE /v1/gameCenterAchievementImages/{id} (DELETE /v1/gameCenterAchievementImages/{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": "game_center_achievement_images_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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'DELETE' implies a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, but the description says nothing about what is removed, whether it cascades to related localizations, or what permissions are required. It only echoes the HTTP endpoint.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Very short and front-loads the [DEPRECATED] status. The parenthetical restating of the same endpoint path is redundant, costing a little, but the definition is efficient overall.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple single-parameter delete with no annotations and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. However, for a destructive deprecated operation it should name the recommended replacement, which it omits.

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 adds no format, scope, or example detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb (DELETE) and resource (gameCenterAchievementImages/{id}), and the [DEPRECATED] tag adds status information beyond the name. It does not differentiate this from sibling delete tools or the v2 variant, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The [DEPRECATED] marker implies the agent should prefer an alternative, which is a real usage signal, but no replacement tool is named and there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Usage is only weakly implied.

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