Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
app-store-connect-mcp

app-store-connect-mcp

by devinwang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

subscriptions_subscription_localizations_get_to_many_related

Fetch subscription localizations from App Store Connect by subscription ID, returning locale-specific names and descriptions.

Instructions

GET /v1/subscriptions/{id}/subscriptionLocalizations (GET /v1/subscriptions/{id}/subscriptionLocalizations)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

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

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesthe id of the requested resource
limitNomaximum resources per page
includeNocomma-separated list of relationships to include
fields_subscriptionsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type subscriptions
fields_subscriptionLocalizationsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type subscriptionLocalizations

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.5.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does 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 almost nothing. The GET verb implies a read-only fetch, but there is no mention of pagination (despite a 'limit' parameter), authentication requirements, or how 'related' differs from 'relationship' resources.

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 same URL is repeated twice in parentheses with no added information, which is pure redundancy rather than conciseness. There is no front-loaded intent statement to orient the agent.

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 five-parameter relational fetch with no annotations and no output schema, the description is effectively empty. It never explains the relationship/related distinction that would let an agent choose correctly between this tool and its identically named sibling, leaving the definition inadequate for correct invocation.

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 five parameters (id, limit, include, fields_subscriptions, fields_subscriptionLocalizations) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning at all, which matches the baseline of 3 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 is a bare restatement of the HTTP path already embedded in the tool name, duplicated verbatim inside parentheses. It conveys that this is a GET on a subscription's localizations, but adds no explanatory content beyond the URL and does not distinguish it from its near-identical sibling subscriptions_subscription_localizations_get_to_many_relationship.

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?

There is no guidance whatsoever on when to use this tool, what prerequisites it has, or how it differs from the 'relationship' variant of the same endpoint that appears in the sibling list. The agent is left to infer usage purely from the name.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools