Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Xcode MCP Server

Xcode MCP Server

by r-huijts
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

compile_asset_catalog

Compile asset catalogs into .car files for iOS, macOS, and watchOS builds, specifying app icons, target devices, and minimum deployment target.

Instructions

Compiles an asset catalog (.xcassets) using actool

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": {
      "catalogPath": "<catalogPath>",
      "outputDir": "<outputDir>"
    },
    "name": "compile_asset_catalog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
appIconNoName of the app icon set to include
platformNoTarget platform (default: iphoneos)
outputDirYesDirectory where compiled assets should be placed
catalogPathYesPath to the asset catalog (.xcassets directory)
targetDevicesNoTarget devices (default: ['iphone', 'ipad'])
minDeploymentTargetNoMinimum deployment target version (default: 14.0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.3

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state side effects, output format, whether outputDir is created/overwritten, or system requirements like Xcode. This is a significant gap for a compilation tool.

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 a single, direct sentence with no filler. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity, though it forgoes any structured detail that could aid understanding.

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?

The tool has six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. The one-line description does not explain the compilation outcome, return value, or how it fits into a build workflow, leaving substantial gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully describes all six parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, yielding the baseline score of 3.

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 identifies the action ('Compiles'), the resource ('asset catalog (.xcassets)'), and the mechanism ('using actool'). This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_icon_set.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool vs alternatives, prerequisites, or expected input/output context. The description is purely a statement of function without usage 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