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 the tool lists schemes but doesn't describe the output format (e.g., list of strings, JSON structure), error conditions (e.g., invalid workspace path), or side effects (e.g., whether it modifies files). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits unspecified.

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 unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimal but incomplete. It lacks details on output format, error handling, and usage context, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly. Without annotations or an output schema, the description should compensate more to provide a complete picture.

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 'workspace_path' clearly documented as 'Path to .xcworkspace file'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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 ('schemes in an Xcode workspace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'xcode_list_schemes', which appears to serve a similar function but might differ in scope or target (e.g., project vs. workspace). This lack of sibling differentiation prevents a perfect score.

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 an Xcode workspace file), compare it to 'xcode_list_schemes', or specify scenarios where listing workspace schemes is appropriate. Without any usage context, the agent must infer when this tool is applicable.

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