frida-ios-mcp

by YPYT1

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

JavaScript

set_text_at_point

Set text at a specified screen coordinate point for debugging UI text input in iOS apps.

Instructions

[debug] setText at point — NOT 拟人. Prefer type_text / smart_type_text. Prefer first-class tools for daily probes.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "text": "<text>"
    },
    "name": "set_text_at_point"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`x`	No
`y`	No
`ref`	No
`text`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only labels the tool as debug but does not explain side effects, permissions, or reliability. The agent learns little about what happens during invocation beyond setting text at a point.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short and front-loaded with the debug label and alternative recommendations. However, it lacks structure and omits necessary parameter details, which slightly reduces efficiency.

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?

With no output schema, 4 parameters (0% schema coverage), and a very brief description, the tool definition is incomplete. It fails to explain what the tool returns, how coordinates work, or what 'ref' is for.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description adds no information about the parameters (x, y, ref, text). The agent cannot infer the meaning or expected format of these fields from the text alone.

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 states 'setText at point' and labels it as a debug tool, clearly indicating its purpose. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly recommending type_text / smart_type_text instead.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly advises against using this tool for daily probes and provides clear alternatives: 'Prefer type_text / smart_type_text.' This helps the agent decide when not to use this tool.

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