Xcode MCP Server

Does 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 tool lists schemes but does not describe the return format (e.g., list of strings, JSON), potential errors (e.g., invalid project path), or side effects (e.g., whether it modifies the project). This leaves gaps in understanding how the tool behaves beyond its basic purpose.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse and understand 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 low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output format, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'project_path' documented as 'Path to .xcodeproj file'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as examples or constraints (e.g., absolute vs. relative paths). Since the schema coverage is high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description relies on the schema for parameter details.

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 resource ('available schemes in an Xcode project'), providing a specific purpose. However, it does not distinguish this tool from its sibling 'xcode_list_workspace_schemes', which appears to serve a similar function for workspaces rather than projects, missing an opportunity for explicit differentiation.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'xcode_list_workspace_schemes' for workspace schemes or other listing tools like 'xcode_list_simulators'. It lacks context about prerequisites, like needing an Xcode project file, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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