Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
leeguooooo

iphone-use

by leeguooooo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Rust
Local

phone_crashes

Read-only

List crash reports on an iPhone or iOS Simulator, filter by process, or open a report to read its exception, crashed thread, and backtrace; read-only and never touches the screen.

Instructions

Crash reports on the phone: without name, list them (name, process, time, size; filter with process); with a name from the list, read that report — exception, crashed thread and backtrace. Read-only: it never touches the screen.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoRead this report (a `name` from the list). Omit to list reports.
limitNoList: at most this many reports (default 50).
processNoList: only reports of processes whose name contains this text.
instanceNoInstalled local instance name, such as i13 or default. Omit to use the configured daemon. No fallback on failure.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.27.34
    • addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
      Added value: +0
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.27.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / instance
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Installed local instance name, such as i13 or default. Omit to use the configured daemon. No fallback on failure.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. First observedv0.21.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, and openWorldHint is present, so the bar is lower; the description still adds the notable fact that the tool never touches the screen, which matters among screen-manipulating siblings. It also discloses the returned fields for each mode (name/process/time/size vs exception/crashed thread/backtrace), useful context given there is no output schema.

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?

A single dense sentence pair, front-loaded with the resource and the mode switch, with no redundant restatement of the tool name. Every clause carries either mode selection or return-contract information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so for both modes. The only omissions are the default page size and the `instance` targeting behavior, both of which are covered by the schema, so nothing an agent needs to call correctly is missing.

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 100%, so a 3 is the floor, but the description goes further by explaining the coupling between `name` and the result shape (a report name switches the tool from list to detail mode) and that `process` is a list-only substring filter. It does not mention `limit` or `instance`, which the schema handles adequately.

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?

States a specific resource (crash reports) and both verbs it implements: list without `name`, read a single report with `name`. The dual-mode split is spelled out so the agent can predict the output shape before calling, and the closing clause separates it from the screen-driving siblings.

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 when-to-use logic is explicit for both modes: omit `name` to enumerate, supply a `name` taken from the list to read detail, and use `process` to narrow the list. What's missing is any pointer to an alternative tool for related diagnostics (e.g. logs), so an agent comparing siblings gets context but no explicit exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools