Retrieve details for a specific SCM provider by ID from App Store Connect, including type, URL, and linked repositories. Use to inspect source control configuration.
GET /v1/scmProviders/{id} (GET /v1/scmProviders/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource | |
| fields_scmProviders | No | the fields to include for returned resources of type scmProviders |
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 behavioral disclosure burden. The GET verb implies a read-only operation, but the description omits authentication requirements, permissions, error behavior, and what exactly is returned.
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?
The description is very short, but it wastes its only sentence by repeating the identical endpoint path twice in parentheses. It is front-loaded with the path but contains no useful explanatory content.
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 provide enough context for correct invocation. It gives only the raw endpoint path and omits what a scmProvider instance represents and what the returned payload contains.
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 input schema already documents both the required id and optional fields_scmProviders parameter. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 names a specific endpoint (GET /v1/scmProviders/{id}), which hints that it retrieves an SCM provider by ID. However, it simply restates the path twice and does not distinguish this operation from sibling tools like scm_providers_get_collection or scm_providers_repositories_get_to_many_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 instance-retrieval tool versus the collection or relationship tools. No prerequisites, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.