Initiate a build upload to App Store Connect by submitting the app ID, platform, bundle version, and short version string. This starts the upload workflow for a new build.
Create a build upload. [POST /v1/buildUploads] RELEASE-level write.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON:API request body (Apple schema: BuildUploadCreateRequest). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate destructive/write behavior and non-idempotency. The description adds the endpoint and 'RELEASE-level write' as extra context, but does not disclose additional behavioral details like required app relationship, follow-up steps, or side effects beyond what annotations convey.
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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and adds the useful endpoint reference, making it optimally concise.
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?
This is a complex create operation with a nested JSON:API body and no output schema, yet the description does not explain the overall build upload process, prerequisites, or what happens after creation. The rich schema covers parameter structure but not the operational context needed to use the tool effectively.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the body structure is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline score of 3.
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 ('build upload'), and includes the exact endpoint. It is unambiguous and distinguishes this creation tool from related siblings like build_uploads__get, build_uploads__delete, and apps__build_uploads__list.
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 such as build_upload_files__create or build_uploads__delete. The 'RELEASE-level write' hint gives some context but does not explain the build upload workflow or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.