Assign a build to a TestFlight beta group using the beta group ID and build ID, enabling testers to access the build for distribution and testing.
Assign a build to a TestFlight beta group
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buildId | Yes | The build ID to add | |
| betaGroupId | Yes | The beta group ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the description owes little on safety. It adds nothing: it doesn't say whether re-adding an already-assigned build fails or duplicates (relevant given idempotentHint=false), nor what eligibility checks the build must pass.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, well suited to a two-parameter tool. It is lean to the point of under-specification, but nothing is wasted.
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 two-param mutation whose annotations cover safety, the description is minimally sufficient to select and call the tool. Missing are the non-idempotent re-assignment behavior and any preconditions, which matter given the diverse sibling set.
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% and both parameters (betaGroupId, buildId) are documented in the schema. The description adds no format or sourcing hints beyond naming the resources, so 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?
Names a specific verb and resource combination (assign a build to a TestFlight beta group), which an agent can distinguish from siblings like add_testers_to_beta_group and create_beta_group by the resource being attached. It is clear but doesn't explicitly contrast with those siblings.
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 on when to use this versus add_testers_to_beta_group or other group tools, and no stated prerequisites (build must be processed/export-compliant, group must already exist). The agent must infer the whole usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.