re-ios

dynamic_enumerate_classes

Enumerate all loaded Objective-C classes from a running iOS app to inspect runtime objects and methods.

Instructions

Enumerate Objective-C classes at runtime on a running iOS app.

Uses Frida to enumerate all loaded ObjC classes from a running process.

Args: target: Bundle ID or PID of the target app device_type: Device type: 'usb', 'local', or 'remote' (default: 'usb') device_id: Specific device ID (optional)

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "dynamic_enumerate_classes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`target`	Yes
`device_id`	No
`device_type`	No	usb

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions using Frida to enumerate classes, but does not disclose whether it modifies state, requires permissions, or has any side effects. Basic information is present but incomplete for a comprehensive understanding.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise, with a one-line summary followed by a clear argument list. No unnecessary words, and the structure front-loads the main purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers its action and arguments but omits what the tool returns (e.g., a list of class names). Given the absence of output schema, mentioning the output would improve completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaning to parameters by explaining 'target' is bundle ID or PID, 'device_type' options with default, and 'device_id' as optional. However, it lacks format constraints or enum values, leaving some ambiguity.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool enumerates Objective-C classes at runtime on a running iOS app using Frida. The verb 'enumerate' and resource 'Objective-C classes' are specific, and it distinguishes from sibling tools which are static or do other dynamic operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explains what the tool does and its arguments but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like static analysis or other dynamic tools. Usage is implied but not clarified with when-not or alternative suggestions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.