Skip to main content
Glama
thatfactory

app-store-connect-mcp

by thatfactory
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools are clearly distinct: one reports server capabilities/safety gates, while the other performs an offline validation task on AppStore domains/locales. There is no functional overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_capabilities and validate_repository. Names are predictable, descriptive, and match their behavior.

    Tool Count3/5

    Two tools is on the thin side and feels more like a small utility helper than a full App Store Connect server. Each tool has a clear purpose, but the count is borderline for the apparent domain.

    Completeness2/5

    Despite the App Store Connect name, the tool surface is extremely limited and lacks expected operations such as managing apps, builds, releases, or authentication. It only covers capability introspection and offline repository validation, which leaves major gaps for real App Store Connect workflows.

  • Average 4.1/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 7 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds meaningful context beyond that: it operates offline, does not execute project tools, requires no Apple credentials, and omitted fields remain unmanaged. This gives the agent important behavioral information that structured annotations alone do not convey.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    The description is two sentences with no filler. The primary action and scope are front-loaded, followed by compact behavioral constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    The description is strong on safety and environmental context (offline, non-mutating, no credentials) but weaker on operational completeness. With no output schema and zero schema description coverage, it should also clarify what validation results look like and how the five parameters relate to the validation scope. The missing parameter detail and output expectations keep this from being fully complete.

    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 0%, so the description carries the burden of explaining parameters. It references 'domains/locales' generically but does not explain the required 'root' parameter, nor 'version' or 'platform', and gives no guidance on how omitted fields relate to the schema. The phrase 'Omitted fields remain unmanaged' hints at behavior but does not clarify parameter semantics.

    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 uses a specific verb ('Validate') and identifies the resource scope ('selected AppStore domains/locales') plus the offline nature of the operation. It is clear enough to differentiate from a general validation tool, though it does not fully explain what 'validate' means in terms of checks or output.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines4/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: offline validation without Apple credentials, and it explicitly states what the tool does not do (mutate files, execute project tools). It stops short of naming an alternative tool or giving an explicit when-not-to-use statement, so it loses one point.

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

  • Behavior4/5

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

    Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by guaranteeing no network access and clarifying that it reports configured safety gates, not live system state.

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

    Conciseness5/5

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

    A single well-structured sentence that leads with the action and object, then adds the key operational constraints. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness5/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    For a zero-parameter, read-only capability reporting tool, the description fully covers what the tool does and its operational boundaries. An agent can invoke it confidently without needing output format details, especially given the rich annotation context.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    There are zero parameters, so the description carries no parameter burden. The schema already covers everything (100% coverage trivially), and the baseline for 0 params is 4; the description appropriately focuses on behavior rather than parameters.

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

    Purpose5/5

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

    The description states a specific verb ('Report') and a clear resource ('implemented features and configured safety gates'). The added constraint 'without credentials or network access' further distinguishes it from potential siblings like validate_repository, making the tool's identity unmistakable.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies this is a safe, zero-setup introspection call (no credentials/network needed), which gives context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, despite the sibling validate_repository being present.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

app-store-connect-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

app-store-connect-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

Copy to your README.md:

shields.io Endpoint

app-store-connect-mcp MCP server — quality and maintenance score on Glama

For READMEs with an existing badge row. Append &style=flat-square (or any other shields.io style) to match the rest, and &metric=tools, &metric=maintenance or &metric=claim to badge a different dimension.

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/thatfactory/app-store-connect-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server