Retrieve the images linked to a subscription version by ID, with optional pagination, to inspect or manage App Store subscription artwork relationships.
GET /v1/subscriptionVersions/{id}/relationships/images (GET /v1/subscriptionVersions/{id}/relationships/images)
| 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 URL. There is no mention of pagination (despite a limit param), auth requirements, or what the relationship payload 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 the second half is a pure duplicate of the path in parentheses, which earns no place. Redundancy rather than useful conciseness.
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, the description should at least hint at the returned resource or pagination. It says nothing, leaving the agent to infer everything from the path and schema alone.
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 'id' and 'limit' both documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no parameter semantics of its own.
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 HTTP path 'GET /v1/subscriptionVersions/{id}/relationships/images' repeated verbatim in parentheses. It conveys only what the tool name already encodes (a GET of the images relationship for a subscription version), adding no distinguishing detail versus sibling relationship endpoints.
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 alternatives, no prerequisites are stated. There are numerous sibling relationship/related tools (e.g., in_app_purchase_versions_images_get_to_many_relationship, subscription_versions_images_get_to_many_related) and nothing routes the agent between them.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.