Builds an iOS project on a remote Mac, syncing files first, then returns the build output tail. Ideal for cross-platform developers without local Mac access.
Build the project on the remote Mac (syncs first by default). Returns ok + the tail of the build output.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | simulator | |
| extra_args | No | ||
| sync_first | No | ||
| project_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does disclose two useful traits: a sync occurs first by default, and the result is ok plus a tail of build output. It stops short of explaining build side effects, signing implications, or the meaning of the modes, which are material for a build operation.
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?
Single sentence with no filler; the sync-first behavior and return shape are front-loaded in their own clauses. Every word earns its place.
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?
The tool has four parameters, a meaningful mode enum, and no output schema, and the description does not explain the mode options or extra_args. The return note is helpful, but an agent cannot tell what simulator/no-codesign/ipa mean or how project_path affects the build, so the definition is incomplete.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only clarifies sync_first ('syncs first by default'); mode values, extra_args, and project_path are left undefined in both schema and description. That is insufficient for an agent to set parameters correctly without additional inference.
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?
States the precise operation 'Build the project' on a specific target 'remote Mac' and clearly separates it from sibling tools like mac_sync_project and mac_run_on_simulator. The parenthetical about sync-first behavior and the return-value note reinforce what the tool does without ambiguity.
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 use case is implied: call this when you need a remote Mac build, and the default sync behavior hints at interplay with mac_sync_project. However, it never says when to choose this over mac_run_on_simulator or ci_trigger_build, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.