List iOS devices paired with your Mac for Xcode development and testing purposes.
List paired devices (iOS devices paired with Mac)
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "xcode_list_device_pairs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't cover critical details like whether this requires specific permissions, what the output format is (e.g., list, JSON), if it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand tool behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (a list operation with no parameters) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., device names, IDs, pairing status) or any behavioral nuances, which is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and results.
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?
The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter explanation in the description. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't add unnecessary param details, though it doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required'.
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?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('paired devices'), specifying that these are iOS devices paired with a Mac. It distinguishes this from siblings like 'xcode_list_physical_devices' or 'xcode_list_simulators' by focusing on paired relationships, though it doesn't explicitly contrast them.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Xcode installed or devices connected), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'xcode_list_physical_devices' or 'xcode_list_simulators', leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.