MCP Appium 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 of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires Xcode to be running, if it returns cached or live data, potential error conditions, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 immediately conveys the core functionality without any fluff. Every word earns its place: 'Get' (action), 'available runtimes' (what), 'for simulators' (context). It's perfectly front-loaded and wastes no space on unnecessary details.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate. It tells the agent what the tool does but leaves out important contextual information like return format, error handling, and dependencies. For a tool in the Xcode/simulator management domain where other tools have more detailed descriptions, this feels somewhat incomplete despite the low complexity.

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 the schema already fully documents the input requirements. The description appropriately doesn't waste space discussing nonexistent parameters. Since there are no parameters to explain, a baseline of 4 is appropriate—the description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.

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 ('available runtimes for simulators'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'xcode_get_device_types' or 'xcode_get_ios_simulators' by focusing specifically on runtimes rather than device types or simulator instances. However, it doesn't explicitly mention what 'runtimes' are (e.g., iOS versions), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Xcode installed), typical use cases (e.g., before creating a simulator), or relationships with sibling tools like 'xcode_create_simulator' that might require runtime information. The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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