Xcode MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it 'lists' devices, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify what information is returned (e.g., device names, UDIDs, iOS versions), whether it requires specific permissions, or if it only shows currently connected devices versus all known devices. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration, 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 has 0 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on return format (e.g., list structure, data fields) and behavioral context (e.g., connectivity requirements, error conditions). For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, more information would be helpful for an agent to use it effectively.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate here, but it also doesn't explicitly state there are no parameters. Given the baseline for 0 parameters is 4, this meets expectations without extra value.

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 action ('List') and target resource ('all connected physical iOS devices'), which is specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'xcode_list_simulators' by specifying 'physical' devices, though it doesn't explicitly mention this distinction in the description text itself.

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., requiring Xcode to be running or devices to be connected via USB), nor does it differentiate from similar tools like 'xcode_list_simulators' or 'xcode_device_info' beyond the implicit scope of 'physical' devices.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.