Request App Store analytics reports for an app, selecting ongoing daily data or a one-time snapshot for historical insights.
Create a new analytics report request for an app
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | Yes | The ID of the app to generate analytics reports for | |
| accessType | No | Access type for the analytics report (ONGOING for daily data, ONE_TIME_SNAPSHOT for historical data) | ONE_TIME_SNAPSHOT |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates a write operation ('create') but does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, asynchronicity, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens after creation (e.g., a report request ID is returned).
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 very short (one sentence) and front-loaded, but it omits necessary details. While concise, it does not fully earn its place as it fails to provide value beyond stating the basic action.
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?
Given the lack of annotations, output schema, and behavioral details, the description is insufficient for a creation tool. It does not describe the response format, error cases, or what a successful creation entails, leaving important context missing.
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?
Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates 'for an app,' which does not enhance understing of parameters like 'accessType' or the purpose of 'appId'.
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 identifies the action ('Create') and the resource ('analytics report request'), and it is distinct from sibling tools like 'list_analytics_reports' which list existing reports. However, it could be slightly more precise about what a 'report request' entails.
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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives (e.g., 'download_analytics_report_segment' or 'list_analytics_reports'), nor are any prerequisites or context given for when this tool should be invoked.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.