Xcode MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool updates dependencies but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it modifies project files, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides output/errors. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 front-loads the core action ('Updates the dependencies') and includes essential context ('Swift project', 'Swift Package Manager', command invocation). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 tool performs a mutation (updating dependencies) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, or behavioral implications, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand execution outcomes.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately omits parameter details, focusing on the tool's purpose. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids unnecessary information.

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 specific action ('Updates the dependencies') and target resource ('your Swift project using Swift Package Manager'), with the exact command invoked ('swift package update'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'build_project' or 'run_tests' by focusing on dependency management rather than compilation or testing.

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 implies usage when updating Swift package dependencies, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'build_project' for building after updates). It mentions the context ('Swift project using Swift Package Manager') but lacks exclusions or prerequisites.

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