Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ios-control-mcp

ios-control-mcp

by als0m3
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

iphone_status

Check a connected iPhone’s model, iOS version, and available transports to verify device status and connectivity.

Instructions

Device information and link state: iOS version, model, and which transports are currently available.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "iphone_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does convey the returned fields, which signals a non-mutating status read, but it never states that it is read-only, whether it fails when no device is connected, whether it reflects cached state, or how 'available transports' should be interpreted. For a zero-argument query the risk is low, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that lists the most useful fields first (iOS version, model) before the vaguer 'link state'. No filler or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema, so the description must indicate return contents — and it does, naming three concrete fields. What's missing is failure behavior (no attached device / lost link) and the relationship to iphone_list_devices, which is the main residual gap for an agent deciding how to interpret an error.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning to add; baseline is 4. The description adds nothing misleading about inputs.

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?

Names the resource (device information / link state) and enumerates the concrete facts returned: iOS version, model, and available transports. It is clearly a read of current device state, though it lacks an explicit verb and doesn't distinguish itself from iphone_list_devices, which an agent might otherwise confuse it with.

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 says nothing about when to call this versus alternatives such as iphone_list_devices or the action siblings (tap, swipe, type). Usage is only inferable from the field list; there is no stated condition, prerequisite, or exclusion.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools