Xcode MCP 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. It states the action ('List') but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to clarifying the tool's function.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, scheme details), behavioral aspects like error handling, or usage context. For a tool with such minimal structured data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'projectPath' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining path formats or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 ('List') and resource ('all schemes available in an Xcode project'), specifying both shared and user schemes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list-projects' (which lists projects) and 'list-targets' (which lists targets), making the scope explicit.

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 like 'read-project' (which might include scheme information) or 'xcodebuild-info' (which could relate to build schemes). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context, such as requiring an existing Xcode project.

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