Fetch the item relationships for a specific App Store review submission by ID, with an optional limit for pagination.
GET /v1/reviewSubmissions/{id}/relationships/items (GET /v1/reviewSubmissions/{id}/relationships/items)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses nothing: no pagination semantics, no auth/permission requirements, no description of the relationship nature. It is a bare endpoint string.
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 repeats the exact same path string, which is pure waste rather than useful concision. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the method and resource.
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-list GET with no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what the relationship returns and how it differs from the 'related' sibling. It provides none of this, leaving the agent with only the endpoint signature.
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%, so the schema already documents both 'id' and 'limit'. The description adds no parameter meaning, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the work.
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 little more than an echo of the tool name as a raw HTTP method and path, duplicated verbatim in parentheses. It conveys that this GETs the 'items' relationship of a reviewSubmission, but offers no explanatory verb or scope beyond restating the endpoint.
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 indication of when to use this tool versus the near-identical sibling review_submissions_items_get_to_many_related, nor any prerequisites. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the name and URL.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.