re-ios

dynamic_hook_network

Inject network interception hooks into a running iOS app to capture HTTP/HTTPS requests, WebSocket traffic, and API calls including headers and body data.

Instructions

Inject network interception hook into a running iOS app.

Hooks NSURLSession, CFNetwork, NSURLConnection, and WebSocket APIs to capture all network requests including URLs, headers, and body data.

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) duration: Monitoring duration in seconds (default: 30)

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_hook_network"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description lacks details on side effects, preconditions (e.g., app must be running, jailbreak required), or reversibility. The behavior beyond basic injection (e.g., how to stop monitoring, impact on app) is not disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise, starting with the core action and then detailing parameters. It uses a clear bullet-point style without redundant information, though it could be slightly more structured for readability.

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?

Given the absence of output schema and annotations, the description moderately covers the tool's purpose and parameters. However, it lacks information about return values (e.g., logs, output format) and overall behavior, leaving some gaps for a safe invocation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining each parameter: target (bundle ID or PID), device_type (with allowed values), device_id (optional), and duration (in seconds). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 injects a network interception hook into a running iOS app, listing specific APIs (NSURLSession, CFNetwork, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like dynamic_hook_iap which targets in-app purchases.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or exclusions. It simply describes the function without contextual usage advice.

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