Skip to main content
Glama
erayendes

Heimdall App Store Connect MCP

by erayendes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript

beta_testers__apps__list

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve apps assigned to a specific beta tester in App Store Connect. Provide the tester's ID to get a paginated list of associated apps.

Instructions

List the apps belonging to a beta tester. [GET /v1/betaTesters/{id}/apps]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesID from the matching list call.
limitNomaximum resources per page
next_urlNoAbsolute links.next URL from a previous response.
fields_appsNothe fields to include for returned resources of type apps 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_apps
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "the fields to include for returned resources of type apps Return only these attributes. A full row set can exceed 200 KB.",
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "accessibilityUrl",
+      "name",
+      "bundleId",
+      "sku",
+      "primaryLocale",
+      "isOrEverWasMadeForKids",
+      "subscriptionStatusUrl",
+      "subscriptionStatusUrlVersion",
+      "subscriptionStatusUrlForSandbox",
+      "subscriptionStatusUrlVersionForSandbox",
+      "contentRightsDeclaration",
+      "streamlinedPurchasingEnabled",
+      "accessibilityDeclarations",
+      "appEncryptionDeclarations",
+      "appStoreIcon",
+      "ciProduct",
+      "betaTesters",
+      "betaGroups",
+      "appStoreVersions",
+      "appTags",
+      "preReleaseVersions",
+      "betaAppLocalizations",
+      "builds",
+      "betaLicenseAgreement",
+      "betaAppReviewDetail",
+      "appInfos",
+      "appClips",
+      "appPricePoints",
+      "endUserLicenseAgreement",
+      "appPriceSchedule",
+      "appAvailabilityV2",
+      "inAppPurchases",
+      "subscriptionGroups",
+      "gameCenterEnabledVersions",
+      "perfPowerMetrics",
+      "appCustomProductPages",
+      "inAppPurchasesV2",
+      "promotedPurchases",
+      "appEvents",
+      "reviewSubmissions"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / id / description
      Removed value: -"Resource identifier."
    • 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."
  3. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
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, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the endpoint but no additional behavioral details (e.g., pagination behavior, default page size, or relationship semantics). It does not contradict annotations.

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 two concise sentences: the first states the action and scope, the second gives the REST endpoint. Every word is purposeful, and the information is front-loaded. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool, the description is sufficient: it states what is listed and provides the endpoint. Parameters are documented in the schema, and annotations cover safety. Minor missing context like pagination defaults or relationship constraints are not critical here, but the description could have been slightly richer.

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?

The input schema provides descriptions for all four parameters, including id, limit, next_url, and fields_apps. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add parameter details. The description itself adds no extra parameter semantics, which is acceptable given the schema's completeness.

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 clearly states the action: list apps, and identifies the specific resource scope: belonging to a beta tester. The endpoint reference reinforces the target. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like beta_testers__builds__list or beta_testers__beta_groups__list.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. Given the many sibling list tools, this is a missed opportunity for orienting the agent.

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