The mcpxcodebuild server enables building and testing iOS Xcode workspaces/projects directly from Visual Studio Code.
Build iOS Xcode projects: Build an iOS Xcode workspace/project by specifying the path to the folder containing the project.
Run tests for iOS Xcode projects: Execute tests for an iOS Xcode workspace/project in a specified folder.
Seamless integration with VS Code: Works with extensions like Cline or Roo Code for a streamlined iOS development workflow.
Flexible installation options: Can be installed using uv (recommended) or pip.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@mcpxcodebuild build the iOS project in /Users/dev/MyApp and show me any errors"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
A Model Context Protocol server that builds iOS workspace/project that enables seamless workflow working with iOS projects in Visual Studio Code using extensions like Cline or Roo Code.
build - Build iOS Xcode workspace/project
folder (string, required): The full path of the current folder that the iOS Xcode workspace/project sits
test - Run test for iOS Xcode workspace/project
folder (string, required): The full path of the current folder that the iOS Xcode workspace/project sits
When using uv no specific installation is needed. We will
use uvx to directly run mcpxcodebuild.
Alternatively you can install mcpxcodebuild via pip:
pip install mcpxcodebuildAfter installation, you can run it as a script using:
python -m mcpxcodebuildRelated MCP server: Xcode MCP Server
Add to your Claude settings:
"mcpServers": {
"mcpxcodebuild": {
"command": "uvx",
"args": ["mcpxcodebuild"]
}
}"mcpServers": {
"mcpxcodebuild": {
"command": "python",
"args": ["-m", "mcpxcodebuild"]
}
}xcodebuild MCP tool is licensed under the MIT License. This means you are free to use, modify, and distribute the software, subject to the terms and conditions of the MIT License. For more details, please see the LICENSE file in the project repository.
Build the iOS Xcode workspace/project in the folder
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | The full path of the current folder that the iOS Xcode workspace/project sits |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how long it takes, error handling, or output format. For a build tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a build operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like what 'build' entails (e.g., compilation, linking), success/failure indicators, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.
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%, with the parameter 'folder' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the folder contains an iOS Xcode workspace/project, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 the action ('Build') and target resource ('iOS Xcode workspace/project in the folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'test', which might also operate on similar resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the sibling 'test' tool. The description implies usage for building iOS projects but offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Run test for the iOS Xcode workspace/project in the folder
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| folder | Yes | The full path of the current folder that the iOS Xcode workspace/project sits |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the action is to 'Run test' but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it's a read-only operation, what kind of tests are run, if it modifies files, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like generating reports. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly with zero waste.
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?
Given the complexity of running tests in an iOS Xcode environment, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to cover key aspects like what the tool returns (e.g., test results, logs, or errors), behavioral traits, or usage context relative to the sibling 'build' tool. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for effective tool selection and invocation.
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?
The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It implies the 'folder' parameter is where the iOS Xcode workspace/project is located, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.
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 the action ('Run test') and target resource ('iOS Xcode workspace/project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'build' tool, which likely performs a related but different operation in the same context.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the 'build' sibling tool or other alternatives. It mentions the context ('in the folder') but gives no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for usage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'build' is for compiling the iOS Xcode workspace/project, while 'test' is for running tests on it. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the desired action.
Both tool names follow a consistent, simple verb pattern ('build' and 'test') that directly describes the action. There are no deviations in naming style, and the pattern is predictable and readable across the tool set.
With only two tools, the server feels thin for its apparent scope of iOS Xcode development. Key operations like cleaning, archiving, or managing schemes are missing, which limits the agent's ability to handle common development workflows. The count is too low for a comprehensive tool surface in this domain.
The tool set is severely incomplete for iOS Xcode development. While build and test are core operations, there are significant gaps such as cleaning builds, archiving for distribution, or running specific test suites. This will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform standard development tasks beyond basic building and testing.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Proof and repair for Apple coding agents: validate Swift, run Xcode evidence, and repair failures.
App Store Connect operator for AI agents: icons, TestFlight builds, listings, IAP, rejection fixes.
Build, run, and inspect iOS apps in disposable hosted Simulators from cloud coding agents.
Run App Store Connect from your IDE: pricing, listings, screenshots, releases, AI visibility.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ShenghaiWang/xcodebuild'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
