Removes an installed app and all its data from an iPhone or iPad over USB, identified by bundle ID. Use it to clean up test builds before reinstalling or resetting app state.
Uninstall an app (and its data) from the device.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| device | No | Device UDID or name substring. Defaults to the select_device choice, then IOS_DEVICE_MCP_DEVICE, else the single USB-connected device. | |
| bundleId | Yes |
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 burden. It does notably disclose that the app's associated data is destroyed, which is the single most important behavioral fact for this destructive operation. However, it omits whether the action is reversible, required permissions/device state, and what happens if the bundle is not installed.
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 short sentence with zero waste, front-loading the verb and the (slightly surprising) data-destruction caveat. Nothing to trim and nothing buried.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is the only source of behavioral context, yet it says nothing about return values, failure modes, or device-precondition requirements. Combined with an undocumented required bundleId, it is adequate but clearly incomplete for a destructive two-parameter tool.
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 only 50%: the 'device' parameter is richly documented in-schema, but 'bundleId' has no description and the tool description adds nothing about its expected format (e.g., 'com.example.app'). With a low coverage ratio the description should compensate for the undescribed required parameter, and it does not.
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?
A specific verb ('Uninstall') plus a precise resource ('an app') and target ('from the device'), which contrasts cleanly with the sibling install_app. The parenthetical 'and its data' adds useful scope info. It stops short of explicitly naming install_app as the inverse operation, so sibling differentiation is implied rather than stated.
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?
There is no stated when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites (is the app required to be installed? does the driver need to be running?), and no mention of alternatives or confirmation semantics. The purpose implies usage, but nothing in the text helps an agent decide when to prefer this over terminate_app or a reinstall flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.