Delete an analytics report request by its ID to remove unwanted reports. Use this endpoint to clean up or cancel report requests from the App Store Connect API.
Delete an analytics report request. [DELETE /v1/analyticsReportRequests/{id}]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID from the matching list call. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.1Input schema / properties / id / descriptionAdded value: +"ID from the matching list call."v2.0.0Input schema / properties / id / descriptionRemoved value: -"Resource identifier."v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the agent knows this is a destructive, retryable operation. The description adds only the endpoint path, which does not provide additional behavioral context like irreversibility or permission requirements. No contradiction with annotations.
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 extremely concise, consisting of one action statement and an endpoint reference. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words, making it efficient for an agent to parse.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, strong annotations), the description is nearly complete. It clearly identifies the action and resource, and the schema fills in the parameter requirement. Minor gap: it does not explicitly state the deletion is permanent, but this is implied by destructiveHint.
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 the 'id' parameter fully described as 'ID from the matching list call.' The tool description's URL template '{id}' adds no semantic value beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states 'Delete an analytics report request' with a specific verb and resource. The HTTP DELETE endpoint reinforces the action, and it is unambiguous alongside sibling tools like analytics_report_requests__create and analytics_report_requests__get.
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 verb 'Delete' implies when to use, and the resource name identifies the target. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use it or any mention of alternatives, such as the need to obtain an ID from a list or create call first. The schema does provide this hint, but the tool description itself lacks direct usage instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.