Retrieve the bundle ID associated with a provisioning profile by profile ID, optionally selecting fields, to verify app identifier and profile mappings.
GET /v1/profiles/{id}/bundleId (GET /v1/profiles/{id}/bundleId)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| fields_bundleIds | No | the fields to include for returned resources of type bundleIds |
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, and it discloses nothing: no auth requirements, no note on whether the relationship may be null/absent, no behavior on missing resources. The duplicated path 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 duplicate of the same endpoint is pure waste rather than useful front-loading. There is no structure to speak of—just a repeated path string.
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 relationship-fetch tool with no annotations and no output schema, an agent needs at least what is being returned and whether the relation can be empty. The description supplies none of that, leaving the schema to do all the work.
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_bundleIds` documented in the schema including the enum of includable fields, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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 just the REST path restated twice: "GET /v1/profiles/{id}/bundleId (GET /v1/profiles/{id}/bundleId)". An agent can infer it fetches the bundle ID related to a profile, but there is no descriptive verb+resource sentence and nothing distinguishes it from the sibling profiles_bundle_id_get_to_one_relationship.
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 indication of when to use this tool, what prerequisites exist, or how it differs from profiles_bundle_id_get_to_one_relationship, which appears alongside it in the sibling list. Usage must be entirely inferred from the URL.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.