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

simctl-mcp-server

by nzrsky
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

simctl_terminate_app

Terminate a running app on a specific iOS simulator device by providing its bundle identifier and device UDID or name.

Instructions

Terminate an app on a simulator device.

Args: device: Device UDID, name, or 'booted' for current device bundle_id: App bundle identifier

Returns: Success message

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": {
      "device": "<device>",
      "bundle_id": "<bundle_id>"
    },
    "name": "simctl_terminate_app"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
deviceYes
bundle_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It states the basic action and return value but lacks details like termination behavior (forceful, loss of unsaved data) or prerequisites (app must be running).

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 (6 lines), front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value without 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 (2 params, no nested objects), the description covers core aspects: purpose, parameters, and return. It could mention that the device must be booted and app installed, but overall it is adequate.

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?

The Args section explains that 'device' can be UDID/name/'booted' and 'bundle_id' is the app identifier, adding meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions. However, no further specifics (e.g., how to obtain bundle_id) are provided.

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 starts with a clear verb 'Terminate' and specifies the resource 'app on a simulator device', differentiating it from sibling tools like simctl_launch_app and simctl_install_app.

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 context is clear: use this tool to stop a running app. However, no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative tools are mentioned, which would have improved guidance.

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