Enables the building and management of iOS applications by interfacing with Xcode project structures and build tools.
Facilitates interaction with macOS-based Xcode development environments to manage projects and trigger system-level builds.
Provides tools for interacting with Xcode projects, allowing AI agents to list projects, inspect targets and schemes, and execute builds.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@Xcode MCP Server build the MyApp scheme for iPhone 15 simulator"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
The first MCP server for Xcode — Let AI agents like Claude build your iOS apps!
An MCP (Model Context Protocol) server that gives AI assistants the power to work with Xcode projects. List projects, read configurations, inspect targets, and trigger builds — all through natural conversation.
Tool | Description |
| Find all Xcode projects in a directory tree |
| Parse .xcodeproj structure (targets, configs, files) |
| Get build targets with product types |
| List available build schemes |
| Trigger xcodebuild with configurable options |
| Get Xcode version and available SDKs |
Related MCP server: Xcode MCP Server
macOS with Xcode Command Line Tools (xcode-select --install)
Node.js 18+
npm or yarn
# Clone the repo
git clone https://github.com/airdrop-alpha/xcode-mcp.git
cd xcode-mcp
# Install dependencies
npm install
# Build TypeScript
npm run buildAdd to ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json:
{
"mcpServers": {
"xcode": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/xcode-mcp/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}Add to your OpenClaw MCP config:
{
"mcpServers": {
"xcode": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/absolute/path/to/xcode-mcp/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}You: List Xcode projects in my Developer folder
Claude: Found 3 Xcode projects:
• MyApp.xcodeproj
• TestFramework.xcodeproj
• SampleProject.xcodeproj
You: What targets does MyApp have?
Claude: MyApp has 3 targets:
• MyApp (application)
• MyAppTests (unit-test)
• MyAppUITests (ui-test)
You: Build it for iPhone 15 simulator
Claude: ✅ Build succeeded!Find Xcode projects in a directory (recursive, 5 levels deep).
{ "directory": "/path/to/search" }Parse an Xcode project file and return its structure.
{ "projectPath": "/path/to/MyApp.xcodeproj" }Returns: Project name, targets, build configurations, source files.
List build targets with their product types.
{ "projectPath": "/path/to/MyApp.xcodeproj" }Returns: Target names and types (app, framework, test, etc.)
List available schemes (shared and user).
{ "projectPath": "/path/to/MyApp.xcodeproj" }Build a project using xcodebuild.
{
"projectPath": "/path/to/MyApp.xcodeproj",
"scheme": "MyApp",
"configuration": "Debug",
"destination": "platform=iOS Simulator,name=iPhone 15",
"clean": false
}Get Xcode version and SDK information. No parameters required.
xcode-mcp/
├── src/
│ ├── index.ts # MCP server entry point
│ └── xcode-parser.ts # Xcode project file parser
├── dist/ # Compiled JavaScript
├── package.json
├── tsconfig.json
└── README.mdParses .xcodeproj files directly (simplified parser)
.xcworkspace support coming soon
Build output truncated to last 5KB for large projects
Code signing disabled by default for faster builds
Workspace (.xcworkspace) support
Simulator management (list, boot, install)
Test execution with result parsing
Swift Package dependencies
Provisioning profile management
App Store Connect integration
Contributions are welcome! Please read CONTRIBUTING.md first.
# Development mode (hot reload)
npm run dev
# Test with MCP Inspector
npm run inspectMIT © 2026
Built for the AI-assisted development era. 🤖
Build an Xcode project using xcodebuild. Can specify target, scheme, configuration, and destination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the .xcodeproj directory | |
| scheme | No | Scheme to build (optional if target is specified) | |
| target | No | Target to build (optional if scheme is specified) | |
| configuration | No | Build configuration (Debug or Release). Defaults to Debug. | |
| destination | No | Build destination, e.g., "platform=iOS Simulator,name=iPhone 15" | |
| clean | No | Clean before building |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool builds an Xcode project but doesn't describe what happens during execution (e.g., whether it shows build output, returns success/failure, handles errors, or requires specific permissions). For a build tool with potential side effects, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
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 extremely concise—just two sentences that directly state the purpose and key parameters. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. It's front-loaded with the core action and efficiently lists relevant parameters without unnecessary elaboration.
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 build tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (build logs, success status, artifacts), error handling, or execution context. Given the complexity of building Xcode projects and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more complete operational context.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value by listing some parameter names (target, scheme, configuration, destination) but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Build an Xcode project using xcodebuild') and specifies the resource (Xcode project). It distinguishes from siblings like list-projects or read-project by focusing on building rather than listing or reading. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential build-related siblings that might exist in other contexts.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it mentions parameters like target, scheme, configuration, and destination, it doesn't indicate when to choose this tool over other build tools or how it relates to the listed sibling tools (list-projects, list-schemes, etc.). There's no mention of prerequisites, dependencies, or typical workflow context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Find all Xcode projects (.xcodeproj) in a directory. Searches recursively up to 5 levels deep, excluding common build directories.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| directory | No | Directory to search for Xcode projects. Defaults to current working directory. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: the recursive search depth limit (5 levels), exclusion of build directories, and the fact it returns 'all' matching projects. However, it doesn't mention output format, error handling, or performance characteristics.
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 perfectly concise at two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds essential behavioral details. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.
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 search tool with one optional parameter and no annotations, the description provides good coverage of what the tool does and its behavioral constraints. The main gap is the lack of output schema, leaving the return format unspecified. However, given the tool's simplicity, the description is reasonably complete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the parameter documentation work.
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 clearly states the specific action ('Find all Xcode projects'), the resource type ('.xcodeproj'), and the scope ('in a directory'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list-schemes' or 'list-targets' by focusing on project discovery rather than project analysis.
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?
The description implies usage context through the search behavior ('recursively up to 5 levels deep, excluding common build directories'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read-project' or 'build'. No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all schemes available in an Xcode project (both shared and user schemes)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the .xcodeproj directory |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('List') but does not disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what the output format is, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to understand quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to clarifying the tool's function.
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?
Given the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the output looks like (e.g., list format, scheme details), behavioral aspects like error handling, or usage context. For a tool with such minimal structured data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'projectPath' fully documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining path formats or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all schemes available in an Xcode project'), specifying both shared and user schemes. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list-projects' (which lists projects) and 'list-targets' (which lists targets), making the scope explicit.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read-project' (which might include scheme information) or 'xcodebuild-info' (which could relate to build schemes). It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisite context, such as requiring an existing Xcode project.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List all build targets in an Xcode project with their product types (app, framework, test, etc.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the .xcodeproj directory |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool lists targets with product types, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, how it handles invalid project paths, if it's read-only, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON, list). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with no annotations.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with every word contributing to clarity.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, output, or usage context. For a tool with no structured data beyond the schema, it should do more to compensate, but it meets the bare minimum.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'projectPath' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., no extra details on path format or examples). Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('build targets in an Xcode project') with specific attributes ('with their product types'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-projects' and 'list-schemes' by focusing on targets, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'read-project' which might also provide target information.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'read-project' or 'list-schemes'. The description implies usage for listing targets, but lacks explicit context, exclusions, or comparisons with sibling tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Read and parse an Xcode project file (.xcodeproj). Returns project structure including targets, build configurations, and source files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| projectPath | Yes | Path to the .xcodeproj directory |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads and parses a file, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify permissions needed, error handling (e.g., for invalid paths), performance characteristics, or format of the returned structure. While it mentions the return content, it lacks details on depth, pagination, or data format, leaving behavioral gaps.
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 highly concise and well-structured in two sentences: the first states the action and resource, the second specifies the return value. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and return content, but for a tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., error cases, permissions). The lack of usage guidelines and limited transparency reduces completeness, though the simple parameter schema mitigates this somewhat.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'projectPath' well-described in the schema as 'Path to the .xcodeproj directory'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the tool operates on Xcode project files, which is already clear from the tool name and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('read and parse') and resource ('.xcodeproj file'), and identifies the returned information (project structure including targets, build configurations, source files). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list-projects' (which likely lists multiple projects) by focusing on reading/parsing a single project file. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with 'list-targets' or 'list-schemes' which might retrieve subsets of the same information.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to choose 'read-project' over 'list-targets' or 'list-schemes' for getting target/scheme information, nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage. The agent must infer usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get xcodebuild version and available SDKs information
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has side effects, or details the return format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers the basic purpose. However, without annotations or output schema, it lacks details on behavioral traits like error handling or return format, making it minimally viable but with clear gaps for agent usage.
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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant information, justifying a baseline score above the minimum.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Get') and resources ('xcodebuild version and available SDKs information'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like 'list-projects' or 'list-schemes', which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'build' or 'read-project'. It lacks context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based solely on the tool name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.1.0buildlist-projectslist-schemeslist-targetsread-projectxcodebuild-infoEach tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: building projects, listing projects/schemes/targets, reading project details, and getting xcodebuild info. The descriptions reinforce these distinct roles, making misselection unlikely.
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list-projects, list-schemes, list-targets, read-project), but 'build' and 'xcodebuild-info' deviate slightly. The naming is still readable and predictable overall, with only minor inconsistencies.
Six tools is well-scoped for an Xcode server, covering essential operations like building, listing, reading, and getting system info. Each tool earns its place without feeling excessive or insufficient for the domain.
The toolset covers core Xcode workflows well, including discovery, inspection, and building. Minor gaps exist, such as no explicit tools for running tests or managing dependencies, but agents can likely work around these with the provided tools.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
A comprehensive Model Context Protocol (MCP) server that enables AI assistants to interact with yo…
A Model Context Protocol (MCP) application for automated GitHub PR analysis and issue management.…
Connect AI assistants to GitHub - manage repos, issues, PRs, and workflows through natural language.
Let ChatGPT, Claude & Cursor use your Mac: email, calendar, iMessage, Teams, files. Local, free.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/airdrop-alpha/xcode-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
