Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
app-publish-mcp

app-publish-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

apple_add_beta_testers_to_group

Add beta testers to an existing beta group using their IDs. Specify the beta group ID and an array of tester IDs to assign them to that group for testing.

Instructions

Add beta testers to a group

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "betaGroupId": "<betaGroupId>",
      "betaTesterIds": "<betaTesterIds>"
    },
    "name": "apple_add_beta_testers_to_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
betaGroupIdYesBeta Group ID
betaTesterIdsYesArray of beta tester IDs

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states the action without revealing if testers are appended or replaced, required permissions, or side effects. This is insufficient for a read-mutation operation.

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?

One clear and concise sentence, no redundant information. It is appropriately brief for a simple action, though it could include more context without harming conciseness.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given no output schema and zero annotations, the description is minimally complete. It states the action but lacks context about prerequisites, effects, or typical use cases. Adequate but not informative.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond 'betaGroupId' and 'betaTesterIds'. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already clarifies the parameters.

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?

The description clearly states 'Add beta testers to a group', specifying the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like apple_remove_beta_testers_from_group, but could be more specific about the type of testers (existing vs. new).

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 guidance on when to use this tool, prerequisites (e.g., testers must exist, group must exist), or alternatives like apple_invite_beta_tester. The description is too minimal for a usage guideline.

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