List TestFlight builds with processing status and expiration date, newest first, to see if your uploaded build is ready.
TestFlight build'lerini listeler; işlenme durumunu ve son kullanma tarihini gösterir. En yeni build en üstte gelir. 'Yüklediğim build hazır mı' sorusunun cevabı.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Kaç build dönsün (varsayılan 20). | |
| uygulama_id | No | Belirtilirse sadece o uygulamanın build'leri. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral value beyond that: results are ordered newest-first and each entry surfaces processing status and expiration date, which shapes how an agent interprets the output.
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?
Three short, front-loaded sentences with the core capability stated first and the ordering rule and use-case scoping appended. Minimal waste, though the closing question sentence lightly restates the already-clear 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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description usefully declares the key fields returned (processing status, expiration) and the sort order. Parameters are fully covered by the schema, so nothing essential is missing, though it could note whether results are paginated.
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%, so both parameters (limit, uygulama_id) are already documented in the schema; baseline is 3. The description adds no extra detail about the limit default or the filtering semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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: listing TestFlight builds, with the added scope of processing status and expiry date. It clearly distinguishes its content from the sibling appstore__testflight_gruplari, but never explicitly names or contrasts with that sibling, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
Gives a concrete usage scenario ('is my uploaded build ready?') that tells the agent when this tool is the right call. It offers no explicit when-not or alternative-routing guidance (e.g. vs testflight_gruplari), so it stops at clear-context-without-exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.