Fetch the build attached to a beta app review submission by providing its ID. Use this to inspect the submitted build directly from the review submission.
Read the build for a beta app review submission. [GET /v1/betaAppReviewSubmissions/{id}/build]
| 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it is a safe read operation. The description merely restates 'Read' and provides the endpoint, adding no extra behavioral context such as response format, error conditions, or relationship details. It does not go beyond the 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: one practical sentence plus the endpoint reference. It is front-loaded with the verb 'Read' and immediately identifies the resource. No filler or redundant information.
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 read-only get-by-ID operation, this description is mostly complete. It communicates the action and resource. However, since there is no output schema, a bit more detail about what the returned build includes could be helpful, but given the simplicity and strong annotations, it is adequate.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'id' ('ID from the matching list call'), so the schema already carries the semantic weight. The description adds no additional parameter context, meeting the baseline for high 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 states a specific action ('Read the build') and the resource ('for a beta app review submission'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like beta_app_review_submissions__get (which reads the submission itself) and builds__get (which reads a build by its own ID). The endpoint path reinforces the precise relationship.
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 description implies usage: when you have a beta app review submission ID and need its associated build. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.