Create or invite a TestFlight beta tester by email, assign them to beta groups, and optionally send an invitation email.
Create/invite a TestFlight tester by email and assign to groups. May send invitation email. For internal testing, the user must already have the appropriate ASC team access.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | |||
| lastName | No | ||
| firstName | No | ||
| betaGroupIds | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the mutation, destructive, non-idempotent and open-world profile, so the description's key contributions are the disclosed side effect ('May send invitation email') and the ASC team-access prerequisite, both of which go beyond the structured fields. It does not say what happens when the tester already exists, though the non-idempotent hint covers part of that.
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?
Two compact sentences, front-loading the operation and following with the side effect and prerequisite. Every sentence earns its place, though phrasing could be tightened slightly.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema and zero parameter documentation, the description covers the invitation side effect and permission prerequisite but omits what the optional name fields do and what happens on duplicate email, which an agent needs to call it safely.
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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only implicitly covers email and group assignment (betaGroupIds). The firstName and lastName parameters are never mentioned, nor is any format or constraint detail, leaving half the inputs undocumented.
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: create/invite a TestFlight tester by email and assign to groups. It partially distinguishes itself from the sibling add_testers_to_beta_group (which adds existing testers) without naming the alternative explicitly.
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 internal-testing prerequisite ('user must already have the appropriate ASC team access') gives useful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-a-sibling guidance, and nothing tells the agent whether to use this instead of add_testers_to_beta_group or create_beta_group. Usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.