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

ios-instruments-mcp

by bfernandesbfs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

analyze_allocations_trace

Analyze memory allocations from an existing .xctrace file to identify performance issues in iOS apps.

Instructions

Analyze an existing .xctrace file recorded with the Allocations template.

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": {
      "trace_path": "<trace_path>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_allocations_trace"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
trace_pathYesAbsolute path to the .xctrace file.
bundle_idNocom.unknown.app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, yet the description gives minimal behavioral information. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what the analysis entails, return values, error conditions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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?

Description is very short (one sentence) and front-loaded with key information. However, it sacrifices completeness for brevity; a bit more detail would not harm conciseness.

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 no output schema, 2 parameters, and minimal description, the tool is under-documented. It does not specify what the analysis outputs, prerequisites (e.g., file existence), or how to interpret results. Sibling tools make context slightly clearer, but still incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 50% (trace_path has description, bundle_id has none). The description adds no meaning beyond the schema. It does not explain bundle_id's purpose or default behavior, leaving ambiguity.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool analyzes an existing .xctrace file recorded with the Allocations template. It specifies the verb (Analyze) and resource (xctrace file), distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_allocations (likely for live analysis) and other trace file tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_allocations. The description implies usage with recorded files, but lacks exclusions or context. Sibling names hint at distinctions but the description does not clarify.

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