Remove beta testers from an app by unlinking their associations. Specify the app and beta tester IDs to update the testing group.
Unlink beta testers from an app. [DELETE /v1/apps/{id}/relationships/betaTesters]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | App name, bundle ID (com.example.app) or numeric Apple ID. | |
| body | No | JSON:API request body (Apple schema: AppBetaTestersLinkagesRequest). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.0Input schema / properties / id / descriptionPrevious value: -"ID from the matching list call."New value: +"App name, bundle ID (com.example.app) or numeric Apple ID."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, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context by framing this as 'Unlink' rather than a full deletion, clarifying that beta tester records themselves are not necessarily destroyed, and the DELETE endpoint reinforces the mutating nature.
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 a single purposeful sentence plus the endpoint. There is no filler, and the key action is front-loaded.
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?
The description, combined with the detailed input schema and annotations, is sufficient to invoke the tool correctly. It captures the operation, the relationship-scoped destructive effect, and the HTTP method. The main gap is the lack of explicit disambiguation from closely related sibling tools, but the tool name and endpoint compensate.
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%: both the id and body parameters are well-described in the input schema. The description itself adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the endpoint placeholder, so the baseline score of 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 uses a specific verb ('Unlink') and resource ('beta testers from an app'), and the endpoint clearly identifies the operation. This distinguishes it from related but different operations such as beta_groups__beta_testers__remove or beta_testers__delete, despite not naming them.
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 intended use is directly implied by the action and endpoint: use this when you need to unlink beta testers from an app. However, the description provides no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or mention of alternative sibling tools with similar relationship-removal semantics.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.