Skip to main content
Glama
erayendes

Heimdall App Store Connect MCP

by erayendes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

beta_app_review_submissions__get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a specific beta app review submission by its ID. Use this to check review state, submission date, or include the associated build details in one request.

Instructions

Read one beta app review submission by ID. [GET /v1/betaAppReviewSubmissions/{id}]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID from the matching list call.
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.
fields_betaAppReviewSubmissionsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type betaAppReviewSubmissions Return only these attributes. A full row set can exceed 200 KB.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv2.0.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Added value: +"ID from the matching list call."
  2. Changed3 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / fields_betaAppReviewSubmissions
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "the fields to include for returned resources of type betaAppReviewSubmissions Return only these attributes. A full row set can exceed 200 KB.",
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "betaReviewState",
+      "submittedDate",
+      "build"
+    ],
+    "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."
  3. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which matches the 'Read' description. The description adds no new behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, but not does it contradict them. It is consistent and adequate given the annotation coverage.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence with the endpoint. Every word earns its place, and it is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary verbosity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-by-ID tool, the description, combined with the rich parameter schemas and safety annotations, provides sufficient context. The read behavior is obvious, and no output schema exists to explain. The description is complete for this low-complexity tool.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (e.g., 'ID from the matching list call', 'comma-separated list of relationships to include'). The tool description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already carries this information, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('beta app review submission') with a clear scope ('by ID'). It distinguishes from siblings like beta_app_review_submissions__list (which retrieves multiple) and beta_app_review_submissions__create (which creates).

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?

The description implies usage for fetching a single record by ID, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to use the list tool instead). The parameter description for 'id' mentions 'from the matching list call', which hints at a typical workflow, but there is no direct comparison or exclusion.

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