Skip to main content
Glama
conorluddy

XC-MCP: XCode CLI wrapper

by conorluddy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete Crash Reports

idb-crash-delete
DestructiveIdempotent

Delete crash reports from a simulator to establish a clean baseline before test runs, ensuring any crash found afterward belongs to that run. Choose by name, bundle ID, or delete all reports permanently.

Instructions

idb-crash-delete

Delete crash reports from a simulator.

Overview

Mainly useful for establishing a clean baseline before a test run, so that any crash found afterwards is known to belong to that run. Deletion is permanent.

Parameters

Optional (exactly one selector required)

  • name (string): Delete one specific report, by name from idb-crash-list

  • bundleId (string): Delete all reports for one bundle

  • all (boolean): Delete every crash report on the target

  • udid (string): Target identifier - auto-detects if omitted

Returns

Confirmation with the selector used and the raw idb output.

Examples

Clean baseline before a test run

await idbCrashDeleteTool({ bundleId: 'com.example.MyApp' });
// ... run the test ...
await idbCrashListTool({ bundleId: 'com.example.MyApp' }); // anything here is from this run

Related Tools

  • idb-crash-list: Inspect before deleting

Notes

  • Destructive and irreversible: clients may gate this behind confirmation.

  • Requires exactly one of name / bundleId / all, to avoid deleting more than intended.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
allNoDelete every crash report on the target
nameNoDelete one report by name
udidNo
bundleIdNoDelete all reports for this bundle id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv4.1.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description transparently states deletion is permanent and irreversible, warns clients may want confirmation, and clarifies that exactly one selector is required to prevent deleting more than intended. It adds meaningful behavior beyond the destructiveHint annotation without contradicting it.

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?

The description is well-organized into clear sections: Overview, Parameters, Returns, Examples, Related Tools, and Notes. Information is front-loaded and every section contributes actionable guidance without redundancy.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With no output schema, the description compensates by describing what the tool returns. It covers why to use it, which selector to use, the deletion side effects, related tools, and an example workflow. The description is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly and safely.

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

Parameters5/5

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

The parameter section explains each parameter's meaning, including udid which lacks a schema description. It adds the crucial 'exactly one selector required' constraint and provides concrete examples tying parameters to real usage, going well beyond the input schema.

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 opens with a precise verb and object: 'Delete crash reports from a simulator.' The Overview further clarifies its purpose as establishing a clean test baseline, which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like idb-crash-list and idb-crash-show.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It explicitly describes when to use the tool ('establishing a clean baseline before a test run'), states constraints ('exactly one selector required'), and points to idb-crash-list as the tool to inspect before deleting. The example demonstrates a complete workflow.

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