List version relationships for a subscription group by ID, with optional pagination, to inspect or link related versions in App Store Connect.
GET /v1/subscriptionGroups/{id}/relationships/versions (GET /v1/subscriptionGroups/{id}/relationships/versions)
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing beyond the implied HTTP GET. There is no information about pagination (despite the limit parameter), auth requirements, or what the response contains.
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 wasteful: the same endpoint string is printed twice, once as the body and once in parentheses, adding no information. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficiency.
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 read relationship endpoint, an agent still needs to know it returns the paginated list of versions linked to a subscription group and how limit behaves. Neither is stated, and with no output schema and no annotations the definition is too thin to call it correctly with confidence.
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 only two simple parameters (id, limit), so the schema already documents them fully. The description adds nothing on top, which makes the baseline 3 appropriate.
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 the raw endpoint path duplicated in parentheses, essentially restating the tool name rather than explaining what the operation does. It does not clarify what a 'versions relationship' of a subscription group returns or how it differs from the sibling subscription_groups_versions_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?
No when-to-use guidance, no mention of the related-vs-relationship sibling distinction, and no prerequisites or alternatives are given. The agent must infer everything from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.