Skip to main content
Glama
ShenghaiWang

mcpxcodebuild

by ShenghaiWang
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: 'build' is for compiling the iOS Xcode workspace/project, while 'test' is for running tests on it. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these operations, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool based on the desired action.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent, simple verb pattern ('build' and 'test') that directly describes the action. There are no deviations in naming style, and the pattern is predictable and readable across the tool set.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only two tools, the server feels thin for its apparent scope of iOS Xcode development. Key operations like cleaning, archiving, or managing schemes are missing, which limits the agent's ability to handle common development workflows. The count is too low for a comprehensive tool surface in this domain.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool set is severely incomplete for iOS Xcode development. While build and test are core operations, there are significant gaps such as cleaning builds, archiving for distribution, or running specific test suites. This will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform standard development tasks beyond basic building and testing.

  • Average 2.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • 1 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states the action without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are needed, how long it takes, error handling, or output format. For a build tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the complexity of a build operation, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks crucial details like what 'build' entails (e.g., compilation, linking), success/failure indicators, or any behavioral context, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'folder' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying the folder contains an iOS Xcode workspace/project, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the action ('Build') and target resource ('iOS Xcode workspace/project in the folder'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling tool 'test', which might also operate on similar resources, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 the sibling 'test' tool. The description implies usage for building iOS projects but offers no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal direction.

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

  • Behavior2/5

    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 the action is to 'Run test' but doesn't explain what this entails—whether it's a read-only operation, what kind of tests are run, if it modifies files, requires specific permissions, or has side effects like generating reports. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

    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?

    The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to grasp quickly with zero waste.

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

    Completeness2/5

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

    Given the complexity of running tests in an iOS Xcode environment, the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to cover key aspects like what the tool returns (e.g., test results, logs, or errors), behavioral traits, or usage context relative to the sibling 'build' tool. This leaves the agent with insufficient information for effective tool selection and invocation.

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

    Parameters3/5

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

    The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage. It implies the 'folder' parameter is where the iOS Xcode workspace/project is located, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't significantly enhance parameter understanding.

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

    Purpose4/5

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

    The description clearly states the action ('Run test') and target resource ('iOS Xcode workspace/project'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from the sibling 'build' tool, which likely performs a related but different operation in the same context.

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

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    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 the 'build' sibling tool or other alternatives. It mentions the context ('in the folder') but gives no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites for usage.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

xcodebuild MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

xcodebuild MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ShenghaiWang/xcodebuild'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server