Installs a built .app or .ipa onto a connected iPhone or iPad, optionally targeting a specific device, for app development testing.
Install a built .app (or .ipa) onto the device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| device | No | Device UDID or name substring. Defaults to the select_device choice, then IOS_DEVICE_MCP_DEVICE, else the single USB-connected device. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it is a mutation tool on a device. It says nothing about whether an existing install is overwritten, whether the device must be booted/connected, signing or provisioning requirements, failure modes, or what is returned. Only the file type accepted is disclosed.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero filler and the artifact scoping up front. Its brevity is efficient but tips into under-specification rather than crispness.
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 device-mutating install with no annotations, no output schema, and one undocumented parameter, the description should cover device targeting, overwrite behavior, and prerequisites. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict the outcome of a call from the definition alone.
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 50%, and the description compensates partially for the undocumented 'path' parameter by naming the accepted artifact types (.app or .ipa). It adds nothing on path format (absolute vs relative, host vs device path), and the well-documented 'device' parameter is left entirely to the schema.
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 (Install) and resource (a built .app/.ipa onto the device), and the word 'built' hints at the build_app → install_app sequence. It does not name or differentiate from close siblings like uninstall_app or launch_app, so it stops 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?
Usage is only implied: 'built' suggests the artifact must exist first and the target is a device, which weakly routes the agent after build_app. There is no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance and no mention of what to do instead if the app is already installed (uninstall_app) or how it relates to launch_app.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.