podium-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

app_state

Check if an app is installed or running on an iOS simulator by providing its bundle ID and simulator UDID.

Instructions

Checks whether an app is installed and/or running on an iOS simulator. installed: exact bundle-id match against the parsed simctl listapps output; running: matches the launchctl UIKitApplication: label on a token boundary (no prefix false positives).

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": {
      "udid": "<udid>",
      "bundleId": "<bundleId>"
    },
    "name": "app_state"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`udid`	Yes	Simulator UDID
`bundleId`	Yes	App bundle identifier (e.g. com.example.MyApp)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Discloses matching rules (exact bundle-id for installed, token boundary for running) and mentions no prefix false positives. However, does not disclose what the output looks like, error behavior, or any side effects. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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?

Two sentences: first states purpose, second provides critical functional detail. No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded and highly efficient.

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?

Covers purpose and matching logic, but omits description of return format or values. Since no output schema exists, the description should provide this information to be fully complete. Adequate but leaves a gap.

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?

Schema already describes both parameters concisely (udid and bundleId). Description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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?

Clear verb 'checks' and resource 'app on iOS simulator'. Distinguishes from sibling tools like app_install or app_list by specifying it checks both installed and running states. The detailed matching criteria further clarify the scope.

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?

Implied usage for checking app state, but no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like app_list or other inspection tools. No when-not-to-use or context provided.

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