Remove a TestFlight tester from your App Store Connect account entirely, revoking access to all builds and groups with a single API call.
Remove a TestFlight tester from your account entirely, so they lose access to every build and group. Removing them from one group is a different call. [DELETE /v1/betaTesters/{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?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those by explaining the real-world consequence—loss of access to every build and group—and clarifying the difference from group-only removal. It does not contradict 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?
Two sentences carry all necessary information: the action and consequence first, then the exclusion of the related use case, and finally the endpoint. No filler or redundant restating of the name.
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 single-parameter delete operation with annotations covering safety profile, the description fully equips the agent. It defines the scope, consequence, distinction from similar operations, and references the endpoint. No output schema exists, but none is needed for a delete.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters, and the 'id' field already includes a useful description ('ID from the matching list call.'). The tool description adds no additional parameter-level guidance, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 verb ('Remove'), a specific resource ('a TestFlight tester'), and the exact scope ('from your account entirely... lose access to every build and group'). It also explicitly contrasts this with removing from a single group, making it immediately distinguishable from related sibling tools like beta_groups__beta_testers__remove.
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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: when the tester should be removed entirely from the account. It also explicitly states a when-not case: 'Removing them from one group is a different call,' steering agents away from using this for group-level removal.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.