list_beta_groupsRetrieve TestFlight groups for an app to inspect internal/external status, build access, public links, feedback, tester counts, and group IDs.
Lists an app's TestFlight groups: internal or external, access to all builds, public link, feedback, tester count and ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| app | No | App ID, bundle ID or exact app name. Defaults to ASC_APP_ID, or to the only app the key can see. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by enumerating what each returned group carries (internal/external, build access, public link, feedback, tester count, ID), but says nothing about pagination, ordering, or rate limits.
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?
One dense sentence, front-loaded with the operation and resource, then listing the returned fields. Every clause 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?
There is no output schema, so the description usefully compensates by telling the agent what fields the listing exposes. Combined with full parameter coverage in the schema, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only pagination/edge behavior is unstated.
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?
With a single optional parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the app identifier and its ASC_APP_ID default. The description adds no semantic detail about the app argument, so the baseline 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+resource ('Lists an app's TestFlight groups') and scopes it to TestFlight groups, which cleanly separates it from list_testers or list_apps. It does not, however, explicitly name or contrast with the sibling create_beta_group, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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?
The description is purely declarative about what is returned; it gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as create_beta_group for mutation or list_testers for the tester roster. Usage is only inferable from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.