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. 'Get logs' implies a read operation, but it doesn't specify whether this requires the simulator to be running, what format/log-level the logs are in, if there are rate limits, or what happens if the UDID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get logs') and resource ('from a simulator'), making it immediately understandable. Every word earns its place, achieving optimal conciseness for such a simple tool.

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 (a read operation with two parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., log text, file path, structured data), error conditions, or dependencies. For a tool that likely interacts with system resources, this leaves too much unspecified for reliable agent use.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters (UDID and predicate). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain what a UDID is, what predicate syntax to use, or give examples. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Get logs from a simulator' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('logs from a simulator'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it doesn't specify what type of logs (e.g., system, application, crash) or distinguish this tool from potential sibling logging tools (though none are listed among siblings). It's functional but lacks specificity that would help an agent understand the exact scope.

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 a booted simulator), exclusions, or related tools. Given the sibling list includes many Xcode simulator tools, there's no indication of how this fits into workflows with tools like 'xcode_get_simulator_info' or 'xcode_get_system_info'.

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