Read the iOS device's current GPS location. Returns the simulated value when ios_set_location is active, otherwise the device's real CoreLocation fix.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| udid | Yes | iOS device UDID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no annotations provided at all, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the simulated-vs-real value distinction and references ios_set_location interaction. It could be stronger by noting permissions/prerequisites or whether the value is a one-time snapshot vs continuous, but for a read-only location fetch the disclosures are reasonable.
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 two sentences with zero wasted words. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds the important simulated-vs-real behavioral nuance. Efficient and well-structured.
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 single-parameter read-only location getter with no output schema required, the description covers the essential behavior including the meaningful edge case of simulated location. The lacking item is any indication of what the response looks like, but since there's no output schema and the tool is simple, this is a minor gap rather than a significant one.
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 a single parameter (udid, 'iOS device UDID') fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides, which meets the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states it reads the iOS device's current GPS location, with a specific verb ('read') and resource ('the iOS device's current GPS location'). It also distinguishes itself from ios_set_location by explicitly noting it returns the simulated value when set_location is active, otherwise the real CoreLocation fix. This differentiates it from siblings like device_set_location, ios_set_location, device_clear_location, and ios_clear_location.
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 description gives clear context that it returns the simulated value when ios_set_location is active, versus the real fix otherwise, which helps the agent understand the behavior in different scenarios. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools (e.g., device_set_location vs ios_set_location), nor does it name alternatives explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
The set contains near-identical duplicate families: web_* and playwright_* expose ~15 pairs of the same desktop-grid-browser operations (web_get_text/playwright_get_text, web_reload/playwright_reload), and screenshot/log/network/mock capabilities each have 5-8 entry points (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot vs ios_screenshot vs ios_fast_screenshot vs web_screenshot vs webpage_screenshot vs session_screenshot). Many individual descriptions carefully draw boundaries (devtools vs traffic, HID vs session), but an agent cannot reliably distinguish web_* from playwright_*, and ios_screenshot/ios_fast_screenshot/ios_mjpeg_screenshot blur together.
The prefix scheme is broken: Android functionality is split arbitrarily between android_* and device_* (device_screenshot vs android_mjpeg_screenshot), the desktop browser gets two parallel prefixes (web_* and playwright_*), and verbs vary across equivalents (device_navigate_url vs web_navigate vs ios_safari_navigate). session_* uses bare verbs (session_url, session_back), and the same concept gets different names (ios_clipboard_get_hid vs ios_get_pasteboard; device_screen vs ios_orientation).
333 tools is an extreme count by any measure — far beyond the 50+ threshold — and much of the bulk is duplicative (the web_*/playwright_* pairs alone double ~15 slots) or out-of-scope for a device-control server (TestRail, Jira, AzDO, agent memory, secret variables, feedback). Even granting that remote device control + test automation is a broad domain, this surface will devastate agent context budgets and is impossible to navigate coherently.
The core device-control and test-automation domain is remarkably thorough: Android and iOS each have full interaction, app-lifecycle, file, network/proxy, performance, crash, accessibility, recording, and replay coverage, with CRUD lifecycles for flows, suites, app uploads, TestRail cases, and visual-review baselines. Minor gaps exist at the margins — Jira/AzDO lack update/transition/comment operations, and iOS cannot open/close tabs — but the central workflows have no dead ends.
