app-publish-mcp

apple_create_iap

Create in-app purchases for your Apple App Store apps by specifying app ID, name, product ID, and purchase type (consumable, non-consumable, or non-renewing subscription).

Instructions

Create an in-app purchase

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": {
      "appId": "<appId>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "productId": "<productId>",
      "inAppPurchaseType": "<inAppPurchaseType>"
    },
    "name": "apple_create_iap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	IAP name
`appId`	Yes	App ID
`productId`	Yes	Product ID (e.g. com.example.app.coins100)
`inAppPurchaseType`	Yes	IAP type

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No behavioral traits disclosed beyond the basic action. For a creation tool, one might expect information about side effects, idempotency, or required permissions. With no annotations, the description fails to provide this context.

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?

The description is a single, direct sentence with no fluff. It is concise but could be slightly expanded without losing efficiency.

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?

Given the tool has 4 required parameters, an enum, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It doesn't mention what happens after creation (e.g., return value, confirmation) or any constraints.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning to parameters; it simply restates the action. No extra semantics beyond schema.

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 the action and resource: 'Create an in-app purchase'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like apple_delete_iap or apple_get_iap by specifying 'create'. However, it lacks context specific to Apple's environment.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., google_create_iap) or under what conditions. No mention of prerequisites or prohibitions.

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

Deploy Server