Fetch the image relationships linked to a specific subscription ID in App Store Connect. Use it to inspect which promotional or subscription images are associated before managing assets.
GET /v1/subscriptions/{id}/relationships/images (GET /v1/subscriptions/{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, and it discloses nothing: not pagination behavior (despite a limit parameter), not auth/permission requirements, not whether results are filtered or sorted. It also doesn't mention the read-only nature that the HTTP method implies.
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 brevity comes from under-specification rather than efficiency — the single sentence is a duplicated URL with zero informational content and no front-loaded explanation of purpose.
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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least state that it returns the images associated with a subscription and how paging works. It supplies neither, leaving the agent to guess from the name 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%, so the schema already documents both 'id' and 'limit'. The description adds nothing beyond the path, but per the baseline rule for high-coverage schemas, 3 is the appropriate ceiling here.
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 just the raw HTTP path echoed twice, with no verb or plain-language statement of what the tool does. An agent can infer it retrieves the images relationship for a subscription from the URL, but that is reconstruction, not description — this is essentially a tautology of the tool name.
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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is offered. Notably, the sibling subscriptions_images_get_to_many_related (the 'related' variant) is never distinguished, so the agent has no basis to choose between the two.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.