Delete a pending user invitation from App Store Connect by its unique ID. Revoke access before the invite is accepted.
DELETE /v1/userInvitations/{id} (DELETE /v1/userInvitations/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | the id of the requested resource |
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 almost nothing. The word 'DELETE' implies a destructive operation, but it does not state whether the deletion is irreversible, what related data is affected (e.g., visible apps relationships), or what authorization is required. This is a significant gap for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.
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 short but wastes its limited space on a redundant parenthetical that repeats the same verb and path verbatim. Nothing is front-loaded beyond the endpoint string itself, so it is neither verbose nor informative.
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 destructive tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least signal irreversibility, side effects, and auth requirements. It supplies none of these, leaving an agent without enough context to invoke the tool confidently in a production App Store Connect workflow.
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?
There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('the id of the requested resource'), so the schema already documents it fully. The description's path template confirms the id is a path parameter but adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.
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 restates the HTTP method and path (DELETE /v1/userInvitations/{id}), which does identify a verb and resource, but it adds no semantic content beyond the tool name itself. An agent learns only that this deletes a user invitation by id, with no distinction from siblings like user_invitations_get_instance or user_invitations_visible_apps_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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the many user_invitations_* siblings. It is purely a restatement of the endpoint with zero contextual routing information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.