Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
simctl-mcp-server

simctl-mcp-server

by nzrsky
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

simctl_create_device

Create a new iOS simulator device with a specified name, device type, and optional runtime for testing and development.

Instructions

Create a new simulator device.

Args: name: Name for the new device device_type: Device type identifier (e.g., 'iPhone 15 Pro') runtime: Runtime identifier (e.g., 'iOS 17.0')

Returns: Created device information

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "device_type": "<device_type>"
    },
    "name": "simctl_create_device"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
device_typeYes
runtimeNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only says 'Create a new simulator device' without disclosing side effects, error conditions, required permissions, or behavioral details like whether creation overwrites existing devices or requires runtime availability.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is very short (three lines) and front-loaded with the main action. It separates Args and Returns, which is clear. However, it could be more concise by integrating parameter descriptions into the main line, and it still leaves room for improvement in structure.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the presence of an output schema (not visible but noted), the description need not detail return values. However, the description lacks completeness for a creation tool: no mention of uniqueness constraints, whether the device is created in a specific directory, or what happens if a device with the same name exists. It feels incomplete for its complexity.

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%, but the description adds brief explanations for each parameter, including examples for device_type and runtime (e.g., 'iPhone 15 Pro', 'iOS 17.0'). This provides context beyond the schema's type-only definitions, though it could include more format constraints or valid values.

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 'Create a new simulator device,' specifying the verb 'create' and resource 'simulator device.' It distinguishes from sibling tools like simctl_boot_device, simctl_delete_device, and simctl_list_devices, which perform different actions.

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 by listing required arguments but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. No guidance is provided on when not to use it or which sibling might be more appropriate for specific scenarios.

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