This MCP server exhibits significant definition quality gaps across all dimensions. Tool naming is inconsistent and sometimes unclear (e.g., 'add-build-phase run-script' vs 'add-build-phase copy-files' are subcommands, not distinct tools). Descriptions are present but generic and often lack context about when to use each tool or what it returns. Parameter descriptions are minimal or absent in many cases. Critically, NO OUTPUT SCHEMAS are documented, the rubric requires tools to document what they return so LLMs can plan downstream calls and extract data. Input schemas are visible in the source (ArgumentParser decorators), but output structure is completely undocumented. Error handling is absent, no recovery guidance, no error categorization, no actionable messages. The 20 tools span a wide domain (project creation, file management, build configuration, Swift packages) but lack the composition metadata (chaining IDs, idempotency hints) needed for agents to chain them effectively. Naming convention is inconsistent: some tools use hyphens (add-file, remove-file) while others use hyphens in subcommand contexts. No enum constraints are visible on parameter values despite tools accepting restricted options (e.g., productType='app'|'framework'|'staticLibrary', platform='iOS'|'macOS'|'tvOS'|'watchOS'). This forces LLMs to guess valid values or hallucinate invalid options.
Add a copy files build phase
Add a run script build phase
Add dependency between targets
Add a file to an Xcode project
Add framework dependencies
Add a Swift Package dependency to an Xcode project
Create a new target
Create a new Xcode project file (.xcodeproj)
No output schemas documented for any tool. Rubric requires tools to document return types so LLMs can plan downstream calls and extract relevant data. Without output schemas, agents cannot chain tools effectively or know what fields to expect.
Parameter values are constrained (e.g., productType must be 'app'|'framework'|'staticLibrary'; platform must be 'iOS'|'macOS'|'tvOS'|'watchOS') but NO ENUM constraints are visible in schemas. This forces LLMs to hallucinate or guess valid values instead of selecting from a defined set.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | F | 44 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 0 | - | v1 |
Create a new group in the project navigator
Duplicate an existing target
Get build settings for a specific target in an Xcode project
List all build configurations in an Xcode project
List all files in an Xcode project
List all Swift Package dependencies in an Xcode project
List all targets in an Xcode project
Move a file to a different group in an Xcode project
Remove a file from an Xcode project
Remove a Swift Package dependency from an Xcode project
Remove a target from an Xcode project
Set build settings for a target
No error handling or recovery guidance in any tool. Errors return raw messages (e.g., 'Target not found') without actionable next steps. Rubric requires error messages to guide LLMs on what to do next (e.g., 'Target not found. Try list-targets() first to see available targets').
Destructive operations (remove-file, remove-target, remove-swift-package) lack confirmation/dry-run support. Rubric pattern 'confirmation-request' requires irreversible operations to support confirmation steps to prevent catastrophic agent errors.
Tool descriptions are generic and lack context. E.g., 'List all files in an Xcode project' does not explain WHEN to call this (before adding files?), WHAT format the response is (JSON array?), or HOW to use it with downstream tools. Descriptions under 50 chars lack sufficient context for LLM selection.
No pagination metadata documented for list_* tools. If a project has hundreds of files, list-files could return massive results. Rubric requires pagination (limit, offset, total_count) and enforces result limits to prevent context window exhaustion.
Parameter descriptions are minimal. E.g., 'platform' parameter in add-target has description 'Platform (iOS, macOS, tvOS, watchOS) (defaults to iOS)', examples in descriptions violate rubric guidance ('Do not put example values in the description'). Use enum constraints instead.
No chaining metadata in tool responses. If create returns a project_id, that ID should be usable in downstream calls (e.g., add-file, add-target). Without documented chaining IDs in responses, agents must infer what to pass next.
No idempotency guarantees documented. Tools like add-dependency or add-framework lack idempotency hints. If an agent retries after ambiguous failure, will it create duplicate dependencies or safely no-op? Rubric requires idempotency declaration.