app-store-connect-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

sales_reports_get_collection

Retrieve App Store sales reports using vendor number, report type, subtype, frequency, and date filters to analyze downloads, subscriptions, and revenue.

Instructions

GET /v1/salesReports (GET /v1/salesReports)

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "sales_reports_get_collection"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`filter_version`	No	filter by attribute 'version'
`filter_frequency`	No	filter by attribute 'frequency'
`filter_reportDate`	No	filter by attribute 'reportDate'
`filter_reportType`	No	filter by attribute 'reportType'
`filter_vendorNumber`	No	filter by attribute 'vendorNumber'
`filter_reportSubType`	No	filter by attribute 'reportSubType'

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.5.0Oct 21, 2026

TDQS

D1.7/5.0

Behavior1/5

Does 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, pagination behavior, or what the response contains. A bare endpoint restatement is the weakest possible form of behavioral transparency.

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 the single sentence is pure restatement with zero information value. This is under-specification masquerading as brevity rather than earned conciseness.

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 six-parameter collection endpoint with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate: it omits return format, pagination, required auth, and the relationship between filtering and downloading reports.

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%, so all six filter parameters (version, frequency, reportDate, reportType, vendorNumber, reportSubType) are documented in the schema itself. The description adds nothing, but the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 only restates the HTTP operation ('GET /v1/salesReports (GET /v1/salesReports)'), adding nothing beyond the tool name. It does not explain what a sales report is, what the collection contains, or how it differs from siblings like sales_reports_download or finance_reports_get_collection.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative (sales_reports_download) for retrieving the actual report data. An agent has no basis for choosing this over its siblings.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server