podium-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_location

Set simulated GPS location on an iOS simulator to test location-gated features during QA without moving the physical device.

Instructions

Sets the simulated GPS location on a running iOS simulator. Codifies the QA geo-spinner fix: use this to unblock location-gated features during QA testing without moving the physical device.

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>",
      "latitude": "<latitude>",
      "longitude": "<longitude>"
    },
    "name": "set_location"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`udid`	Yes	Simulator UDID
`latitude`	Yes	Latitude in decimal degrees
`longitude`	Yes	Longitude in decimal degrees

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Jun 23, 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 that the location is simulated and for testing, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., persistence, prerequisites). This moderate transparency is adequate but not exhaustive.

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 concise with two sentences, the first stating the action and the second providing context. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (setter, no output schema), the description covers purpose and usage context adequately. It could mention error handling (e.g., simulator not running), but overall it is sufficiently complete.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the three parameters. The description does not add new meaning beyond schema descriptions, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'Sets the simulated GPS location on a running iOS simulator', providing a specific verb and resource. It also adds context about the QA use case, distinguishing it effectively from sibling tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('unblock location-gated features during QA testing without moving the physical device'), giving clear usage context. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when not to use, but the context is sufficient.

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