MCP Appium Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—such as whether it returns a structured list, what format the output is in, if it requires specific conditions (e.g., Xcode installed), or potential errors. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand execution.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 complexity of iOS simulator tools and the lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'available' means (e.g., booted, installed), the return format, or how this integrates with other tools like 'xcode_get_ios_simulators'. For a tool in a rich ecosystem, more context is needed.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it also doesn't mention the lack of parameters, which could be slightly helpful. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('list of available iOS simulators'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from most siblings by focusing on listing simulators rather than interacting with them, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'xcode_get_ios_simulators' which appears to serve a similar function.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'xcode_get_ios_simulators' or 'list-devices'. The description implies usage for retrieving simulator information but offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or complementary tools.

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