asc_list_beta_groupsList an app's TestFlight beta groups (internal and external) with their ids, whether they receive every build automatically (hasAccessToAllBuilds), and public link settings.
List an app's TestFlight beta groups (internal and external) with their ids, whether they receive every build automatically (hasAccessToAllBuilds), and public link settings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by naming the concrete fields returned (ids, hasAccessToAllBuilds, public link settings), which is real added value given there is no output schema. It stops short of stating pagination or return-format behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its scope come first, followed by returned fields. The nested parentheticals make it slightly dense but nothing is wasted.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, this is largely complete: it identifies the resource, scope, and returned fields. Remaining gaps (appId format, pagination, whether public links only apply to external groups) are minor but real.
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 0% for the single appId parameter, so the description should compensate. 'An app's' implies appId identifies the app but gives no format guidance (numeric App Store ID vs. bundle ID) or scoping notes, leaving the agent to infer it.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and a precisely scoped resource ('an app's TestFlight beta groups (internal and external)'). No sibling tool covers beta groups, so an agent can distinguish it from asc_list_builds or asc_list_app_info without opening a schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it needs beta group data for a given app. There is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisites, and no named alternative or follow-up tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.