Extracts and analyzes iOS app entitlements using codesign to detect risky capabilities like get-task-allow, iCloud containers, and keychain groups.
Extracts and analyzes entitlements embedded in the iOS app binary using codesign. Detects dangerous entitlements like get-task-allow (debug builds), iCloud containers, and keychain groups.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ipa_path | Yes | Absolute path to the IPA file to analyze |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the mechanism (codesign) and the types of findings (get-task-allow, iCloud containers, keychain groups), but does not state that it is read-only static analysis with no side effects, nor how it behaves on malformed or unsigned IPAs.
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?
Two tight sentences: what it does and what it surfaces. No filler, and the extraction method is front-loaded with the value proposition.
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 simple one-parameter static analysis tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and detection targets but says nothing about the shape of results (e.g., a list of entitlement key/value pairs) or failure modes, which an agent needs to interpret the call.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already explains ipa_path as an absolute path. The description adds no semantics beyond that, which meets the baseline but does not exceed it.
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 (extracts/analyzes) and resource (entitlements in the iOS app binary) plus the mechanism (codesign). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the close sibling ios_permissions_checker, leaving the entitlements-vs-permissions boundary to inference.
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 mention of detecting 'dangerous entitlements' implies a security-audit use case, but the description never states when to pick this over ios_permissions_checker, ios_manifest_analyzer, or ios_secrets_scanner, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.