list_devicesRetrieve devices registered for development and ad hoc distribution, filtered by name, UDID, status, or platform, with pagination support.
Lists devices registered for development and ad hoc distribution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| udid | No | ||
| limit | No | Maximum number of items to return (1-200). | |
| cursor | No | The nextCursor value from a previous call of this tool, to fetch the next page. | |
| status | No | ||
| platform | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes only domain scoping (development and ad hoc distribution devices) and says nothing about pagination behavior, default limits, or empty results — acceptable but thin given annotations carry the main burden.
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 short sentence with no filler and the scope qualifier placed immediately after the verb. It is lean, though the leanness borders on under-specification rather than optimal density.
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?
With six optional filter/pagination parameters and no output schema, the description should say what a device record contains and how filters combine. Instead it offers one clause, leaving an agent unable to predict results or refine a listing.
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?
The description adds no meaning to any of the six parameters; the only schema-documented ones are limit and cursor, leaving name, udid, status, and platform at 33% coverage. With low coverage the description should clarify matching behavior (exact vs partial) but does not.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Lists devices') and narrows scope to devices 'registered for development and ad hoc distribution', which distinguishes it from siblings like register_device or list_apps. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
There is no statement about when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., register_device, list_users), and no guidance on filtering or paging strategy. Usage is only inferable from the verb 'Lists'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.