get_accessibility_treeRetrieve the iOS Simulator's accessibility tree to find UI elements and their exact tap coordinates, solving the problem of locating precise interaction points for automated testing or control.
Return the simulator accessibility tree (elements with labels, roles, frames and computed center points). Use this to find exact tap coordinates for an element.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and the description usefully lists what data is returned. However, it does not mention snapshot freshness, whether hidden/off-screen elements are included, or the coordinate space of the center points, so some important behavioral details remain implicit.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no redundancy. The first sentence states what the tool returns, and the second immediately gives the practical use case. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a simple, zero-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately covers what is returned and why an agent would call it. Since there is no output schema, the description's enumeration of the returned fields is especially valuable. It could be slightly more explicit about coordinate system or hierarchy, but the core information is present.
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 tool has zero parameters, and the schema is empty with 100% coverage by default. The description therefore has no parameter burden to carry, and the baseline score of 4 is appropriate.
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 uses the specific verb 'Return' with the clear resource 'simulator accessibility tree' and enumerates its contents (labels, roles, frames, center points). It strongly differentiates this tool from UI interaction siblings like tap and swipe by focusing on inspection rather than action.
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?
It explicitly states the intended use: 'Use this to find exact tap coordinates for an element.' This gives clear context for when the tool is useful. It does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the use case is concrete enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.