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

app-publish-mcp

by mikusnuz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

apple_create_version

Creates a new App Store version for submission using app ID, version string, platform, release type, and optional release date settings.

Instructions

Create a new App Store version for submission

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>",
      "versionString": "<versionString>"
    },
    "name": "apple_create_version"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIdYesApp ID
platformNoIOS
copyrightNo
releaseTypeNo
versionStringYesVersion (e.g. 1.0.0)
earliestReleaseDateNoISO 8601 date-time with timezone; required only for SCHEDULED releases

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.7.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / appId / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / properties / earliestReleaseDate / description
      Previous value: -"ISO 8601 date for scheduled release"New value: +"ISO 8601 date-time with timezone; required only for SCHEDULED releases"
    • addedInput schema / properties / earliestReleaseDate / format
      Added value: +"date-time"
    • addedInput schema / properties / versionString / minLength
      Added value: +1
  2. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description has to carry the full behavioral burden. It states that this is a mutation, but says nothing about required permissions, whether the new version starts in an editable state, how releaseType affects behavior, or what happens after creation. That is a real gap for a write tool with no annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is one short, front-loaded sentence that says what the tool does without extra words. But it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than being concise and complete.

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?

This is a mutation tool with 6 parameters, 2 enums, no annotations, no output schema, and only 50% schema coverage. The description doesn't cover required fields, platform defaults, release scheduling semantics, or the result of the call, so an agent would have to infer most of the calling contract.

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 only 50%. The description doesn't define versionString, platform, releaseType, earliestReleaseDate, or copyright, and it doesn't explain the interplay between releaseType=SCHEDULED and earliestReleaseDate. Three parameters have no description anywhere, so the description should compensate but doesn't.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Create a new App Store version.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like apple_create_version_localization or apple_create_custom_product_page_version, which operate on sub-resources rather than the top-level version. It just doesn't say how to differentiate further.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't say to check apple_list_versions first, nor to use apple_update_version for existing versions, nor what prerequisites must be met before creating a version.

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