Sets or updates an in-app purchase price using a price point ID, enabling you to assign or change App Store pricing for an IAP.
Set or update the price for an in-app purchase using a price point ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| iapId | Yes | The in-app purchase ID | |
| pricePointId | Yes | The price point ID (get available price points via the API) |
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 safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that — it does not say whether the new price takes effect immediately, whether existing purchasers are grandfathered, or whether the previous price is replaced or retained.
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 tightly worded sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is partly the reason other dimensions are thin.
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 2-parameter mutation with a rich schema and no output schema, the description covers the minimum: what it changes and by what key. It omits the operational consequences of a destructive price change and any mention of what comes back, leaving a gap larger than necessary for a money-affecting write.
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%, with both parameters documented inline, so the schema carries the load. The description only restates that a price point ID is required, adding no format, sourcing, or validation detail beyond the schema's own 'get available price points via the API' note.
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 (set/update), resource (in-app purchase price) and mechanism (price point ID), so an agent can distinguish it from set_subscription_price and the other IAP tools. It stops short of an explicit contrast with those siblings, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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?
Usage is implied by the resource name: use this when changing an IAP's price. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no statement of prerequisites (a valid price point must already exist), and no named alternative such as listing price points before calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.