Delete a beta group from App Store Connect using its unique ID to clean up test groups and manage testers.
Delete a beta group. [DELETE /v1/betaGroups/{id}]
| 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?
The annotations already indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds only the HTTP method and path, which is an implementation detail rather than behavioral context. It does not disclose consequences like cascade effects or reversibility.
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 and front-loaded, with two short sentences. Every word conveys essential information without waste.
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 single-parameter delete with annotations covering destructive/idempotent behavior, the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks context about side effects (e.g., what happens to beta testers) and does not help distinguish from related operations in the extensive sibling list.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter 'id' already has a clear description ('ID from the matching list call'). The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the schema sufficiently documents what is needed.
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 clearly states the action ('Delete') and resource ('beta group'), and includes the endpoint. It is distinct from siblings because it is the only 'beta_groups__delete' tool, though it does not explicitly call out relationships to related tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes many related operations (e.g., builds__beta_groups__remove, beta_groups__update), but the description gives no context about choosing this delete over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.