Skip to main content
Glama
erayendes

Heimdall App Store Connect MCP

by erayendes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

apps__review_submissions__list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve app review submissions with filters for state and platform. Check submission status or track review progress by app ID.

Instructions

List the review submissions belonging to an app. [GET /v1/apps/{id}/reviewSubmissions]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesApp name, bundle ID (com.example.app) or numeric Apple ID.
limitNomaximum resources per page
includeNocomma-separated list of relationships to include Pull related records in the same call. Without it, checking a relationship costs one extra call per row returned.
next_urlNoAbsolute links.next URL from a previous response.
filter_stateNofilter by attribute 'state'
filter_platformNofilter by attribute 'platform'
fields_reviewSubmissionsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type reviewSubmissions Return only these attributes. A full row set can exceed 200 KB.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.3.0
    • changedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Previous value: -"ID from the matching list call."New value: +"App name, bundle ID (com.example.app) or numeric Apple ID."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"ID from the matching list call."
  3. Changed4 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields_reviewSubmissions
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "the fields to include for returned resources of type reviewSubmissions Return only these attributes. A full row set can exceed 200 KB.",
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "platform",
+      "submittedDate",
+      "state",
+      "app",
+      "items",
+      "appStoreVersionForReview",
+      "submittedByActor",
+      "lastUpdatedByActor"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Removed value: -"Resource identifier."
    • changedInput schema / properties / include / description
      Previous value: -"comma-separated list of relationships to include"New value: +"comma-separated list of relationships to include Pull related records in the same call. Without it, checking a relationship costs one extra call per row returned."
    • changedInput schema / properties / next_url / description
      Previous value: -"Absolute `links.next` URL from a previous response, to fetch the next page. When set, all other parameters are ignored."New value: +"Absolute links.next URL from a previous response."
  4. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the app-scoping context and HTTP GET method, but does not disclose pagination, default ordering, or what response shape to expect.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences with no fluff; the action and endpoint are front-loaded. Every clause adds orientation.

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?

Schema and annotations cover parameters and safety, but without an output schema the agent still has to infer response shape and pagination behavior. It also lacks guidance on how this endpoint relates to review_submissions__list or beta_app_review_submissions__list.

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?

Input schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters and are already detailed (id aliases, include cost note, fields size warning). The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which lands at baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('review submissions belonging to an app'), reinforced by the endpoint path. The app scoping distinguishes it from sibling list tools like review_submissions__list and beta_app_review_submissions__list.

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?

It implies use when you have an app identifier and need that app's review submissions, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this route. With several review-related sibling list endpoints, explicit routing would be clearer.

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