Xcode MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists targets with product types, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles invalid project paths, if it's read-only, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON, list). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.

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 waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to clarity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context. For a tool with no structured data beyond the schema, it should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum.

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 the parameter 'projectPath' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra details on path format or examples). Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('build targets in an Xcode project') with specific attributes ('with their product types'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-projects' and 'list-schemes' by focusing on targets, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'read-project' which might also provide target information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read-project' or 'list-schemes'. The description implies usage for listing targets, but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.

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