re-ios

unpack_ipa_tool

Extract an IPA file to a directory for static analysis of iOS applications, with optional output path specification.

Instructions

Extract an IPA file to a directory for further analysis.

Args: path: Path to the IPA file output_dir: Optional output directory (defaults to <ipa_name>_unpacked)

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "unpack_ipa_tool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes
`output_dir`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

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 discloses the extraction action and default output directory, but lacks details on error handling, permissions, or side effects.

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, consisting of one sentence and an argument list with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple extraction tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials. However, it could mention the return value or error behavior for completeness.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the two parameters: 'path' is required, 'output_dir' is optional with a default, providing meaning beyond the schema's type and title.

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 action: 'Extract an IPA file to a directory for further analysis.' It specifies the verb 'extract' and the resource 'IPA file', clearly distinguishing it from sibling analysis tools.

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 implies usage as a first step before analysis, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or provide any usage context or exclusions.

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