Fetch marketplace search details for an app by name, bundle ID, or Apple ID.
Read the marketplace search detail for an app. [GET /v1/apps/{id}/marketplaceSearchDetail]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | App name, bundle ID (com.example.app) or numeric Apple ID. |
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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description aligns by saying 'Read' and using a GET endpoint. It does not add meaningful behavioral context beyond that, such as error cases or response shape, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.
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 concise sentence followed by the explicit endpoint, with no filler or repetition. The key action and resource are 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?
For a simple one-parameter GET operation, the description and schema provide enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. It could optionally clarify what 'marketplace search detail' contains or how this read relates to sibling create/update/delete operations, but that is not essential for basic invocation.
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?
The schema fully documents the single 'id' parameter with valid formats (app name, bundle ID, or numeric Apple ID), so the description does not need to compensate. The description contributes no additional parameter detail, keeping this at the baseline for 100% schema coverage.
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 ('Read') and a clear resource ('marketplace search detail for an app'), and the endpoint makes the operation unambiguous. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling marketplace_search_details create/update/delete tools, though the read verb implies the distinction.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as marketplace_search_details__create, __update, or __delete. The read-only framing is implicit, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.