list_beta_groupsList TestFlight beta groups for an App Store Connect app using its numeric app ID. Use it to see existing tester groups before assigning builds.
List TestFlight beta groups for an app. Pro feature.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app_id | Yes | App Store Connect app ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the 'Pro feature' gating caveat, which is genuinely useful context, but omits pagination, result limits, or ordering behavior. With annotations carrying the safety profile, this is an adequate but thin contribution.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word earns its place with no filler.
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 simple one-parameter read tool with readOnlyHint and full schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. It lacks any note on what a group contains or whether results are paginated, but the essentials for correct invocation are present.
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 100% and the single app_id parameter is fully documented with type, pattern, and meaning. The description adds nothing parameter-specific, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 and resource: 'List TestFlight beta groups for an app.' An agent can distinguish this from siblings like assign_build_to_group or list_builds. However, it does not explicitly differentiate scope against any named sibling.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The only hint is 'Pro feature,' which signals availability gating but not when an agent should select this tool over the related beta-group and build tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.