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

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

game_center_leaderboard_set_releases_delete_instance

Delete a Game Center leaderboard set release by its ID. Use to remove outdated release associations from App Store Connect.

Instructions

[DEPRECATED] DELETE /v1/gameCenterLeaderboardSetReleases/{id} (DELETE /v1/gameCenterLeaderboardSetReleases/{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_leaderboard_set_releases_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

C2.6/5.0
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 behavioral burden. DELETE implies a destructive, likely irreversible mutation, but the description says nothing about permissions, whether the deletion cascades, whether it is idempotent, or what a failure looks like.

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 endpoint string is printed twice verbatim, which is pure redundancy. What remains is a single deprecation tag plus a duplicated URI, with no front-loaded explanation of purpose.

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, deprecated, zero-annotation delete tool, the description omits almost everything an agent needs: replacement guidance, safety profile, and effect. Only the deprecation flag and the raw route are present, which is insufficient.

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 the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond restating the {id} placeholder in the URI template.

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 pairs the HTTP verb DELETE with the concrete resource path /v1/gameCenterLeaderboardSetReleases/{id}, so an agent can tell it removes a leaderboard set release. However, it is essentially the tool name restated in URI form rather than a plain-language statement of effect, and it does not clarify what a 'leaderboard set release' is among the many game_center_leaderboard_set_* siblings.

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 is genuine when-not-to-use guidance, which most sibling delete tools lack. But it names no replacement tool or migration path, so an agent knows to avoid it without knowing what to call instead.

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