Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Swipium

Swipium

by GeroPalombo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Prepare an iOS simulator target

qa_prepare_ios_target

Boot, install, launch, and verify an iOS Simulator .app, then report whether WDA automation or visual-only mode is available; .ipa files are rejected.

Instructions

Prepare an iOS Simulator: boot, install a simulator .app (consent-gated), launch, verify, and report whether WDA structured automation or visual-only mode is available. .ipa files are refused.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>"
    },
    "name": "qa_prepare_ios_target"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appNoSimulator .app path (absolute or project-relative).
deviceNoSimulator UDID or exact name (ignoring case).
launchNo
approveNo
bundleIdNo
attachWdaNoauto (default): attach WDA if reachable, else visual-only; required: fail if it cannot attach; skip: visual-only.
consentIdNo
sessionIdYes
allowLaunchWithoutMetroNoLaunch a debug RN/Expo .app (no embedded main.jsbundle) without a serving Metro (it will RedBox).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the annotations (which only declare non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world), the description discloses two substantive behaviors: install is consent-gated, and the tool degrades to visual-only when WDA cannot attach, reporting which mode resulted. It does not explain what happens to a previously installed app on re-run or what a failed boot/verify returns, so it stops short of full disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the pipeline order, then the mode-report outcome, then the .ipa exclusion as a trailing constraint. No filler clauses and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a nine-parameter, multi-stage mutation pipeline with no output schema, the definition covers the happy path and the WDA fallback but omits failure/rollback behavior, prerequisites, and most parameter meanings. The mode-report sentence usefully compensates for the missing output schema, but the overall picture is only adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 44%, below the halfway mark, so the description must carry more weight than it does. It only hints at the consent mechanism via 'consent-gated' (which maps to approve/consentId but never explains their relationship) and mentions install/launch in passing; bundleId, launch, sessionId, and device semantics are left entirely to unlabeled or thin schema fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names the exact resource (an iOS Simulator, not a device farm or generic target) and enumerates the concrete operations: boot, install a simulator .app, launch, verify, and report WDA vs visual-only availability. The closing constraint ('.ipa files are refused') plus the iOS-specific scope makes it distinguishable from the generic qa_prepare_target without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the iOS-simulator path and that .ipa inputs are out of scope, which is a genuine exclusion. But there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over qa_prepare_target or qa_ios, and no stated prerequisites (Xcode, simulator runtime, availability of a built .app) for a tool whose required input is only a sessionId.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools