Skip to main content
Glama
conorluddy

XC-MCP: XCode CLI wrapper

by conorluddy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Simulator Environment Health Check

simctl-health-check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify iOS environment failures by validating Xcode tools, simulators, runtimes, and disk space. Receive step-by-step fixes for any detected issue.

Instructions

simctl-health-check

Comprehensive iOS simulator environment health check.

Overview

Performs a complete diagnostic check of your iOS development environment, validating Xcode tools, simulators, runtimes, and disk space. Returns actionable recommendations for any issues found. Checks 6 critical areas in seconds: Xcode Command Line Tools, simctl availability, available simulators, booted simulators, available runtimes, and disk space.

Parameters

None - performs complete environment check automatically.

Returns

Health report with pass/fail status for each check, specific guidance for failures, summary of passed/failed checks, and overall healthy status indicator.

Examples

Run complete health check

await simctlHealthCheckTool();

Check before CI/CD pipeline

// Validate environment before running test suite
const health = await simctlHealthCheckTool();
if (!health.healthy) {
  console.error('Environment issues detected');
}

Related Tools

  • simctl-list: See available simulators after health check passes

  • simctl-create: Create simulators if none found

  • simctl-suggest: Get intelligent simulator recommendations

Notes

  • Checks 6 critical areas: Xcode tools, simctl, simulators, booted devices, runtimes, disk space

  • Provides specific solutions for each failed check

  • Validates entire toolchain in seconds

  • Warns if disk usage over 80% (simulators require significant space)

  • Perfect for troubleshooting when operations fail unexpectedly

  • Use before CI/CD pipeline execution to ensure environment health

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it checks 6 specific areas, warns if disk usage is over 80%, returns actionable recommendations, and provides pass/fail status for each check. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (Overview, Parameters, Returns, Examples, Related Tools, Notes). It's somewhat verbose with repeated information (the 6 check areas are listed twice, and the 'validates entire toolchain in seconds' point is repeated), but the front-loaded overview and examples make it easy to scan. Every section earns its place, though some redundancy could be trimmed.

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?

For a zero-parameter diagnostic tool, the description is complete. It explains what the tool checks, what it returns (health report with pass/fail status, guidance, summary, overall indicator), provides usage examples, and lists related tools. The output schema is absent, but the Returns section adequately describes the return value. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (empty properties object). The description explicitly states 'None - performs complete environment check automatically,' which fully clarifies that no parameters are needed. With 0 params, the baseline is 4, and the description confirms this clearly.

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 performs a comprehensive iOS simulator environment health check, validating Xcode tools, simulators, runtimes, and disk space. It lists the 6 specific check areas, distinguishing it from sibling tools like simctl-list or xcodebuild-version. The verb 'performs a complete diagnostic check' 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 Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: before CI/CD pipeline execution, when troubleshooting operations fail unexpectedly, and to validate the entire toolchain. It also includes related tools (simctl-list, simctl-create, simctl-suggest) that can be used after the health check, though it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives.

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