Skip to main content
Glama
erayendes

Heimdall App Store Connect MCP

by erayendes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

age_rating_declarations__update

Idempotent

Update an app's age rating declaration by submitting Apple's content questions, such as violence, gambling, and web access, so the App Store rating is derived from those answers.

Instructions

Answer Apple’s content questions to set the app’s age rating — violence, gambling, mature themes, unrestricted web access. The rating is derived from the answers rather than chosen. [PATCH /v1/ageRatingDeclarations/{id}]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID from the matching list call.
bodyYesJSON:API request body (Apple schema: AgeRatingDeclarationUpdateRequest).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.4.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / body / properties / data / properties / attributes / properties / gracRatingClassificationNumber
      Added value: +{
+  "nullable": true,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / body / properties / data / properties / attributes / properties / koreaAgeRatingOverride / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "NONE",
-  "FIFTEEN_PLUS",
-  "NINETEEN_PLUS"
-]New value: +[
+  "NONE",
+  "ALL",
+  "TWELVE_PLUS",
+  "FIFTEEN_PLUS",
+  "NINETEEN_PLUS"
+]
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"ID from the matching list call."
  3. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.0
    • removedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Removed value: -"Resource identifier."
  4. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare the mutation/idempotency/destructiveness profile, so the bar is lower, yet the description adds a genuinely non-obvious behavioral trait: the rating is computed from the answers, not selected. That changes how an agent should invoke it. It stops short of covering auth needs or partial-update behavior for unspecified fields.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences front-load the action and the key derivation rule, with the endpoint mapping appended compactly. Nothing is wasted, though the trailing bracket is minor meta detail rather than core instruction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a complex nested-body tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the description covers purpose and the derivation model but omits whether all content questions are required, whether the call is a full or partial update, and auth expectations. No output schema exists, so return values aren't strictly required, but the invocation contract could be more complete.

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 coverage is 100% and the attributes are fully documented with enums, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description names a few of the content categories (violence, gambling, mature themes, unrestricted web access) but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Answer Apple's content questions to set the app's age rating', with the concrete categories (violence, gambling, mature themes, unrestricted web access) enumerating the scope. An agent can tell it modifies the age-rating declaration. It doesn't explicitly name the read counterpart (app_infos__age_rating_declaration__get), so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The note that 'the rating is derived from the answers rather than chosen' implies how to use the tool (supply content answers), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or named alternative. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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