Blocks until a specified iOS boot phase is reached or the timeout ends, enabling agents to synchronize VM startup before driving Safari.
Block until a boot phase is reached (kernel, launchd, backboardd_ready, springboard_owns_screen, or running for a restored snapshot) or the timeout (max 280 s) ends.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| phase | No | ||
| timeout | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose the key trait: this call blocks, and it is bounded by a max 280 s timeout. However it doesn't say what happens on timeout (error, false return, partial state) or what is returned on success, which matters for a blocking primitive.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence stating the blocking behavior, the phase values, and the timeout ceiling with zero filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally cover the return value and timeout-end behavior. It covers the phase domain and time bound but leaves the outcome of the call ambiguous.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it largely does: it enumerates the valid phase strings and gives a concrete max for timeout (280 s), effectively documenting both parameters. It stops short of stating a default timeout or units/behavioral meaning of the phase omitted case.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb ('block until') and resource (a boot phase), and enumerates the phase values, so an agent can tell this is a boot-progress synchronization primitive rather than a generic wait. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like wait or settle, but the boot-phase framing is distinctive enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it (waiting for boot progression) via the phase list, but never states when to prefer it over the sibling 'wait'/'settle' tools or what to do when no phase is given. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.