Skip to main content
Glama
gbatistuta0

AppFactory

by gbatistuta0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ASC Create Subscription Group

asc_create_subscription_group
Destructive

Create a subscription group in App Store Connect for an app during manual subscription tree setup. Requires human approval before the write; returns the new group id.

Instructions

Create a subscription group for an app (live write, needs human approval).

Use when: hand-building the subscription tree. Prefer store_setup, which does groups, products, prices and offers idempotently from app.spec.json. Returns: {ok, data: {data: {id, ...}}} or an approval_required refusal.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_idYesApp Store Connect app id (numeric Apple id, e.g. '1234567890'); for aso_competitor_iap the iTunes trackId.
approval_idNoApproval id from a previous approval_required refusal; omit on the first call. The human approves out-of-band with `appfactory approve <id>`, then call again with the same arguments and this id.
reference_nameYesInternal reference name of the subscription group (not shown to users).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.1.5
    • addedInput schema / properties / app_id / description
      Added value: +"App Store Connect app id (numeric Apple id, e.g. '1234567890'); for aso_competitor_iap the iTunes trackId."
    • addedInput schema / properties / approval_id / description
      Added value: +"Approval id from a previous approval_required refusal; omit on the first call. The human approves out-of-band with `appfactory approve <id>`, then call again with the same arguments and this id."
    • addedInput schema / properties / reference_name / description
      Added value: +"Internal reference name of the subscription group (not shown to users)."
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare write/destructive/non-idempotent, and the description corroborates plus adds the crucial out-of-band approval requirement and the refusal shape ('or an approval_required refusal'). It stops short of detailing what the live write mutates downstream, so a 4.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three tight sentences with 'Use when' and 'Returns' labels; the approval caveat is front-loaded in the first line. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description covers what an agent needs: purpose, alternative, approval workflow, and refusal case. Minor gap is the absence of success/error nuance beyond the refusal, but nothing essential is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents app_id, reference_name, and the approval_id flow in detail. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or constraints beyond it, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a subscription group for an app') and immediately scopes it as a live write requiring approval. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like asc_create_subscription and store_setup.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly gives the when ('hand-building the subscription tree') and names the preferred alternative with the reason ('store_setup, which does groups, products, prices and offers idempotently from app.spec.json'). This is textbook routing guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools