Download a file from a remote Mac to a local destination. Relative paths resolve inside the synced project, making it easy to fetch build outputs like app.ipa.
Download a file from the remote Mac (relative paths resolve inside the synced project), e.g. build/ios/ipa/app.ipa.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| local_dest | Yes | ||
| remote_path | Yes | ||
| 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 carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose one useful behavioral trait—relative paths resolve inside the synced project—and the verb 'Download' implies a non-mutating remote fetch. But it does not mention whether local_dest is overwritten, whether directories are created, or any permissions/scope requirements.
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 short and front-loaded, with no filler. The example path is compact and useful. It loses a point only because the terseness comes at the cost of missing parameter and usage detail, though the structure itself is efficient.
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 with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is not complete enough. An agent is left guessing about local_dest semantics, the role of project_path, overwrite behavior, and how this tool differs from CI artifact download alternatives.
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 clarifies remote_path with the relative-path rule and a concrete example, but local_dest and especially project_path remain unexplained beyond their parameter names. This is insufficient for a 3-parameter tool with no schema descriptions.
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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Download a file from the remote Mac.' The example and path-resolution note make the tool's scope specific and distinguish it from related tools such as ci_download_artifacts or device_install_app.
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 usage by noting that relative paths resolve inside the synced project, which suggests this is for retrieving files produced on the Mac. However, it never explicitly names alternatives or says when not to use this tool, so an agent must infer the boundary versus sibling tools like ci_download_artifacts.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.