Inspect iOS .mobileprovision and .p12 signing files to extract team, bundle ID, expiry, certificates, and device details. Use it to verify signing assets before building or deploying.
Inspect a .mobileprovision (name, team, bundle id, kind, devices, expiry, certs) or a .p12 (needs password).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| p12_password | 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 full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does mention the password requirement for .p12, but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, describe its return format, or mention potential errors. 'Inspect' implies non-destructive behavior, but this is left to inference.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently conveys the tool's scope and the password constraint, making every word count.
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 simple read-only tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core inputs and password constraint. However, it does not explicitly state the return format, whether the operation is non-destructive, or what happens on invalid input. Given the absence of annotations, this is a noticeable gap.
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 schema has zero description coverage, so the description must add meaning. It explains that `path` refers to a .mobileprovision or .p12 file, and that `p12_password` is required when inspecting .p12 files. This adds meaningful context beyond the bare parameter titles.
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 states a specific verb ('Inspect') and names the exact resource types (.mobileprovision and .p12), enumerating the fields extracted from mobileprovision. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like signing_quick_setup, which perform setup rather than inspection.
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, nor any exclusions. The only usage hint is that .p12 files require a password, which is a prerequisite rather than a scenario. An agent would have to infer when to choose this tool from its name and purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.