Sets an iOS simulator's GPS location by device ID, latitude, and longitude to simulate movement or location-based app behavior.
Set the simulator's GPS location.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| latitude | Yes | Latitude coordinate | |
| device_id | Yes | Simulator UDID | |
| longitude | Yes | Longitude coordinate |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It doesn't disclose whether the simulator must be booted, whether the location change is persistent or temporary, what happens on invalid coordinates, or any side effects. Only the basic action is stated.
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?
A single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the core purpose.
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?
With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values. However, for a tool that mutates simulator state with no annotations, the description is minimal and lacks prerequisites or behavioral context. It is adequate but has clear gaps.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (latitude, longitude, device_id). The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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?
States a specific verb (set) and resource (simulator's GPS location), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like set_status_bar, set_appearance, and set_clipboard. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't specify prerequisites such as needing a booted simulator, nor does it mention any conditions or exclusions. The description is purely a restatement of the action.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.