Run shell commands on a remote Mac to execute iOS build, test, or setup tasks, optionally within your synced Flutter project directory.
Run a shell command on the remote Mac (login shell). in_project=true runs it inside the synced project dir,
e.g. cd ios && pod install --repo-update or flutter test.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | ||
| in_project | No | ||
| project_path | No | ||
| timeout_seconds | 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 carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions login shell and in_project, but omits important behaviors for a shell execution tool: output/exit-code semantics, timeout behavior, default working directory, environment assumptions, and the destructive potential of arbitrary commands.
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 compact and front-loaded: the main action appears first, followed by a useful usage example. Every sentence earns its place, though the brevity leaves some critical details unaddressed.
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, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description needs to be much more thorough. Only one parameter is meaningfully explained, and there is no guidance on expected output, errors, timeouts, or project_path behavior. This is insufficient for reliably invoking the tool in varied contexts.
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 for the input schema. It explains in_project and gives a helpful example, but command, project_path, and timeout_seconds are left undocumented. The parameter semantics are only partially explained.
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 identifies the action ('Run a shell command on the remote Mac') and the resource, and the examples ('pod install', 'flutter test') make the intended use concrete. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling mac_* tools, but its broad shell-execution purpose is clear.
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 implies when to use the tool via examples and explains the in_project behavior, but it gives no explicit guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools to prefer for specialized tasks. Usage context is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.