Skip to main content
Glama

deliver_metadata

Uploads metadata to App Store Connect drafts using a direct API to bypass the fastlane 'No data' bug, gated by ASO approval.

Instructions

Upload metadata to the ASC draft — DIRECT API (bypasses the fastlane 'No data' bug). ASO-gated.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
app_dirYes
bundle_idYes
approval_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose two useful traits — that it uses a direct API path and bypasses a known fastlane 'No data' bug — and hints at gating ('ASO-gated'), but it says nothing about permissions, what gets overwritten in the draft, failure modes, or reversibility.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Extremely terse and front-loaded — the core action leads and the parenthetical rationale follows. It earns most of its words, though 'ASO-gated' is a compressed term that adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be documented. But for a write/gated operation with three undocumented parameters and no annotations, the description omits prerequisite conditions, parameter meaning, and error/side-effect behavior — substantial gaps remain.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description explains none of the three parameters. 'approval_id' in particular is an opaque, non-obvious identifier whose role (which approval, issued where) is never clarified, and app_dir vs bundle_id precedence is left ambiguous. The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Upload metadata to the ASC draft'), which is clear enough to distinguish from read-oriented siblings like metadata_check or metadata_export. However, it does not name or contrast with the many nearby metadata tools (metadata_render_listing, metadata_listing_check, aso_validate_metadata), and the trailing 'ASO-gated' is a cryptic qualifier rather than a clarifying one.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. 'ASO-gated' hints at a prerequisite stage/approval but never states the condition or names an alternative tool. The agent must infer from the presence of an 'approval_id' parameter that some approval workflow precedes invocation.

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