Retrieve details for a specific App Store Connect build by build ID to inspect its metadata and status.
Get details for a specific build
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| buildId | Yes | The build 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral details beyond the basic purpose, such as what 'details' includes, error behavior, or any rate limits.
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 wasted wording. It is appropriately sized for a simple getter, even if it is sparse.
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 read-only tool with one required parameter and rich annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema, it does not explain what 'details' are returned, and it provides no error or usage context.
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 the single buildId parameter is already documented as 'The build ID'. The description does not mention the parameter or add format/semantic detail beyond the schema, which is acceptable for a simple required ID.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get details' for 'a specific build'. It is clear enough to distinguish from list_builds by the 'specific build' wording, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate 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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus list_builds or other build-related tools. The phrase 'specific build' implies usage when a build ID is known, but no alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.