asc_content_rights_getCheck the content rights declaration for an app in App Store Connect to determine if it declares third-party content requiring rights.
Read-only. Gets whether the app declares it uses third-party content requiring rights (contentRightsDeclaration).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | Bundle id, app name, or App Store Connect app id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only,' which is a critical safety trait. However, it does not describe return format, error cases, or authorization requirements, which would provide richer transparency.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds value, conveying both the read-only nature and the precise purpose.
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 getter with one well-documented parameter and no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It states what is retrieved (contentRightsDeclaration) and implies a boolean result. It could mention authentication or return format, but for this low-complexity tool, the current detail is sufficient.
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 coverage is 100%, and the appId parameter is already well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('content rights declaration'), and even names the exact field (contentRightsDeclaration). This distinguishes it from the sibling asc_content_rights_update tool.
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 provides clear context: it is a read-only operation to fetch the content rights declaration. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the intent is unambiguous. The read-only phrasing signals when this tool should be used (inspection) versus the update sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.