Create an end user license agreement for an app by specifying agreement text, app, and target territories via the App Store Connect API.
Create an end user license agreement. [POST /v1/endUserLicenseAgreements]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | JSON:API request body (Apple schema: EndUserLicenseAgreementCreateRequest). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate it's a write operation (readOnlyHint=false), but the description adds no further behavioral details such as validation rules, side effects, or required permissions.
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 short (one sentence plus endpoint), which is concise. However, it lacks any structured layout beyond the single sentence.
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 nested required fields (type, attributes, relationships) and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context to understand the full structure or behavior.
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 input schema has 100% coverage, so the description doesn't need to explain parameters; it meets the baseline expectation.
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 explicitly states the action ('Create') and the resource ('end user license agreement'), making the purpose clear and distinct from sibling tools like get, update, delete.
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 like update or delete. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.