Create a build upload file in App Store Connect to register app binary metadata for a build upload. Provide file name, size, UTI, and asset type to prepare the upload.
Create a build upload file. [POST /v1/buildUploadFiles]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON:API request body (Apple schema: BuildUploadFileCreateRequest). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate this is a non-destructive mutation (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description confirms 'Create' but adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects or rate limits. No contradiction with annotations, but no added value beyond them.
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 very concise with two short statements. It is front-loaded with the action and resource. However, it may be too brief for a creation tool; a bit more context about the role of a build upload file would improve it.
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?
Given the complexity of the nested schema and the lack of an output schema, the description provides minimal context. It does not explain how this tool fits into the build upload workflow, how to obtain the required buildUpload relationship ID, or what the response contains.
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 coverage is 100% for the single 'body' parameter, which is described as a JSON:API request body. However, the description does not elaborate on the nested required fields (fileName, fileSize, etc.) that are only in the schema. Baseline score applies since coverage is high.
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 'Create' and the resource 'a build upload file', distinguishing it from sibling tools like build_upload_files__get or build_uploads__create. Including the HTTP endpoint further clarifies the operation.
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 usage guidance is provided. There is no information on when to use this tool versus alternatives, prerequisites (e.g., the need for an existing buildUpload ID), or context about the multi-step upload process.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.