Fetch a specific in-app purchase image by ID via App Store Connect to inspect its file details, asset delivery state, and upload operations.
GET /v2/inAppPurchaseImages/{id} (GET /v2/inAppPurchaseImages/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| fields_inAppPurchaseImages | No | the fields to include for returned resources of type inAppPurchaseImages |
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 disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, whether the resource may be absent, or what the response contains. A bare route string conveys zero behavioral context.
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 the parenthetical repetition of the identical route is pure noise with no informational payload. Brevity without content is under-specification, not conciseness.
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?
For a simple read-by-id tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description still fails to state what resource is returned or that the call is a lookup of a specific in-app purchase image. It omits everything an agent would need beyond the schema.
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%, with both 'id' and 'fields_inAppPurchaseImages' documented in the schema itself, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, but it does not need to compensate for a coverage gap.
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 only the raw HTTP route 'GET /v2/inAppPurchaseImages/{id}' duplicated in parentheses, which restates the tool name rather than describing the operation in prose. An agent can infer it fetches an in-app purchase image by id, but there is no verb+resource explanation and no differentiation from the v1 sibling in_app_purchase_images_get_instance.
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, no mention of the v1/v2 distinction, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.