Retrieve the app associated with a specific pre-release version by its ID to identify which app a TestFlight or build version belongs to.
GET /v1/preReleaseVersions/{id}/relationships/app (GET /v1/preReleaseVersions/{id}/relationships/app)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource |
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 of behavioral disclosure, and it discloses nothing. It does not explain that relationship endpoints typically return linkage/identifier data rather than the full app resource, nor mention auth requirements or error behavior.
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 same endpoint string appears twice with no added information, which is redundancy rather than conciseness. Nothing is front-loaded because there is no explanatory content at all.
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 and no output schema, the description should at minimum clarify the relationship-vs-related distinction and what the payload contains. As written, an agent cannot distinguish this tool from its many near-identical siblings in the catalog.
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?
There is exactly one parameter and the schema documents it at 100% coverage ('the id of the requested resource'), so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes no additional meaning about the id's format or provenance.
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 endpoint path, duplicated verbatim inside parentheses, so it effectively restates the tool name rather than explaining purpose. An agent can infer 'GET the app relationship of a pre-release version' from the path, but the text adds no clarification about what a relationship endpoint returns versus the sibling pre_release_versions_app_get_to_one_related.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer. With both pre_release_versions_app_get_to_one_relationship and pre_release_versions_app_get_to_one_related present, the absence of any routing advice is a serious omission.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.