Skip to main content
Glama
gbatistuta0

AppFactory

by gbatistuta0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

ASC Submit For Review

asc_submit_for_review
Destructive

Submit an app to App Store review with human approval; requires a valid approval_id and returns a submission ID or blockers.

Instructions

Submit the app to App Store review (live write, ALWAYS needs out-of-band human approval, even with approvals off).

Use when: everything else is ready and the human has approved. Without a valid approval_id nothing is submitted. Not for: uploading a TestFlight build (use testflight_ship). Returns: {ok, review_submission_id, detail} or {ok: false, blockers, next}, 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.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 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."
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already flag destructive/non-idempotent/openWorld, but the description adds non-obvious behavior: it ALWAYS requires out-of-band human approval even with approvals disabled, and it discloses the failure modes (approval_required refusal, {ok:false, blockers, next}). This is exactly the kind of gating and refusal semantics an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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 short labeled blocks (purpose, Use when/Not for, Returns) with the critical write/approval warning front-loaded. Every sentence carries routing or behavioral information; no filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is a high-stakes irreversible write with only two params and an output schema; the description covers the approval gate, the alternative tool, and a return-shape summary. Nothing an agent needs to call it safely is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description nudges higher by stating the consequence of a missing/invalid approval_id ('nothing is submitted') and reinforcing the re-call flow. It does not add much beyond the already-detailed schema text for approval_id.

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+resource ('Submit the app to App Store review') and immediately qualifies it as a live write. It explicitly contrasts with the nearest sibling ('Not for: uploading a TestFlight build (use testflight_ship)'), so the agent can route correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Provides an explicit 'Use when' precondition (everything ready + human approved) and an explicit 'Not for' exclusion naming the alternative tool. Nothing about when to select this tool is left to inference.

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