Retrieve all icons for a specific App Store Connect build using its ID. Access paginated icon data to identify or manage build assets.
List the icons belonging to a build. [GET /v1/builds/{id}/icons]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ID from the matching list call. | |
| limit | No | maximum resources per page | |
| next_url | No | Absolute links.next URL from a previous response. |
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."Input schema / properties / next_url / descriptionPrevious 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."v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds minimal context by stating the HTTP GET method. It does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination details or any limitations beyond what the schema indicates.
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 sentence with no redundancy, including the endpoint for extra clarity. Every word contributes necessary information.
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 list operation with no output schema, the description adequately states the tool's purpose and relies on the schema for parameter details. It could be more complete by noting the return contents explicitly, but it is sufficient for this level of complexity.
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 schema fully documents the parameters. The description does not add any parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high coverage.
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 uses a specific verb 'List' and identifies the resource 'icons belonging to a build', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that list other build-related entities. It also includes the endpoint for reference.
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 implies the tool is used when icons of a specific build are needed, but does not explicitly provide when/when-not guidance or mention alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to sibling list tools are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.