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

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

game_center_matchmaking_rules_delete_instance

Delete a specific Game Center matchmaking rule by its ID. Remove outdated or incorrect rules to maintain accurate matchmaking configurations.

Instructions

DELETE /v1/gameCenterMatchmakingRules/{id} (DELETE /v1/gameCenterMatchmakingRules/{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_matchmaking_rules_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

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it says nothing about irreversibility, required permissions, cascading effects on rule sets, or error behavior for a destructive DELETE operation.

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?

It is short but wastes its only content on duplicating the same HTTP path twice in parentheses, providing no front-loaded useful information. Brevity here reflects under-specification, not economy.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a destructive delete tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is entirely inadequate — it never states what is destroyed, whether the action is reversible, or what the caller receives, leaving the agent unable to judge consequences.

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 there is a single 'id' parameter documented as 'the id of the requested resource', so the schema already does the work. The description adds nothing beyond the path template, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description is a mechanical restatement of the endpoint (DELETE /v1/gameCenterMatchmakingRules/{id}) duplicated in parentheses, which effectively repeats the tool name rather than explaining what deleting a matchmaking rule means. It does convey the verb+resource implicitly, but adds no plain-language purpose beyond the identifier.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as game_center_matchmaking_rules_update_instance or the rule-set delete tools. No prerequisites, no conditions, no alternatives are mentioned.

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