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

ios-instruments-mcp

by bfernandesbfs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

analyze_leaks_trace

Analyze an existing .xctrace file recorded with the Leaks template to identify memory leaks in iOS apps.

Instructions

Analyze an existing .xctrace file recorded with the Leaks 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_leaks_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?

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral traits, but it only states the action. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the file is missing, error behavior, or output format. Very minimal transparency.

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?

A single sentence is concise, but it is slightly under-specified. It could include more details without being verbose. Nonetheless, it is efficiently front-loaded.

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, no annotations, and two parameters with incomplete description, the tool is missing important context: output format, error handling, and the role of bundle_id. The description is insufficient for a production tool.

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 description coverage is 50% (trace_path described, bundle_id not). The tool description adds no additional parameter info; bundle_id's purpose and usage are unexplained. The description fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.

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 specifies the verb 'Analyze' and the resource 'existing .xctrace file recorded with the Leaks template', distinguishing it from other analyze_*_trace tools for different templates. It is specific and unambiguous.

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?

The description implies usage when an .xctrace file recorded with the Leaks template exists, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools like analyze_leaks or other trace analyzers. Guidance is only implied.

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