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 action ('Build and run') but doesn't clarify whether this is a destructive operation, what permissions are required, how long it takes, or what happens on failure. For a complex build/run tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 front-loads the core action and target. There is zero wasted verbiage, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly while still conveying the essential purpose.

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?

For a tool that performs build and run operations on physical devices—a potentially complex and state-altering process—the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and minimal behavioral context, it fails to provide necessary details like error handling, side effects, or expected outcomes, leaving significant gaps for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, such as format examples or constraints. The baseline score of 3 reflects adequate coverage by the schema alone.

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 ('Build and run') and target ('app on physical device'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'xcode_build_for_device' (which only builds) and 'xcode_launch_app_simulator' (which targets simulators), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'xcode_build_for_device' or 'xcode_install_app_device'. The description implies usage for physical devices but doesn't specify prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer context 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.