app-publish-mcp

apple_list_certificates

List Apple Developer certificates from App Store Connect. Filter by certificate type such as iOS Development or Mac App Distribution to view signing identities for app publishing.

Instructions

List certificates

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "apple_list_certificates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`certificateType`	No	Filter by certificate type (e.g. IOS_DEVELOPMENT, IOS_DISTRIBUTION, MAC_APP_DISTRIBUTION, MAC_INSTALLER_DISTRIBUTION, MAC_APP_DEVELOPMENT, DEVELOPER_ID_KEXT, DEVELOPER_ID_APPLICATION, DEVELOPER_ID_INSTALLER)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.1Mar 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it returns all certificates, pagination behavior, or authentication requirements. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and is insufficient.

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 extremely concise (two words) and front-loaded. However, the conciseness sacrifices critical information, earning a score slightly below perfect.

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 simplicity of the tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description should specify that the output is a list of certificate objects. It fails to describe the return format, making it incomplete.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, listing valid certificate type values. The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not go beyond.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description 'List certificates' clearly identifies the action and resource, but it lacks specificity about the scope (e.g., all certificates for the account) and does not differentiate from sibling list tools like apple_list_profiles or apple_list_devices.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as apple_create_certificate or apple_revoke_certificate. There is no mention of prerequisites or context for invocation.

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

Deploy Server