Retrieve details for a specific in-app purchase by ID to review pricing, status, and configuration within App Store Connect.
Get details for a specific in-app purchase
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iapId | Yes | The in-app purchase 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, covering the full safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no note on what 'details' includes, error behavior for missing IDs, or auth needs.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words, appropriate for a simple getter. Nothing extraneous, though it is close to the minimum for conveying purpose alone.
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 one-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description plus structured fields give an agent enough to invoke it correctly. Only marginal return-shape detail is missing, and no output schema exists to demand it.
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 coverage is 100% and iapId is fully documented in the schema, so the schema carries the parameter explanation. The description adds no syntax, format, or ID-source guidance beyond what the schema provides, 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?
States a specific verb (get) and resource (in-app purchase) scoped to a single record, which distinguishes it in spirit from list_iaps. It does not explicitly name 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?
The word 'specific' hints at fetching one record versus listing, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or named alternative (e.g., use list_iaps to enumerate). The agent must infer the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.