Xyvenra

Customer Expo workflow

eas_dispatch

Destructive

Dispatch an existing workflow on the customer’s Expo project with the Expo token they supply for this call. The token is not stored. The in-app starter is not uploaded. Xyvenra does not pay Expo. Do not call this from guidance.

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": {
      "token": "<token>",
      "appId": "<appId>",
      "gitRef": "<gitRef>",
      "workflowFile": "<workflowFile>"
    },
    "name": "eas_dispatch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`appId`	Yes	Expo project UUID.
`token`	Yes	Expo access token for the customer’s own account. Forwarded once and not stored.
`gitRef`	Yes	40-character commit that already exists on that project.
`workflowFile`	Yes	Workflow file name in that repository, such as preview.yml.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the mutation risk is signalled structurally. The description adds useful credential/billing context (token forwarded once and not stored, Xyvenra does not pay Expo), but it never explains the destructive consequence of dispatch or what state changes on the customer project, which is the gap the annotation flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The opening sentence is well front-loaded, but the string of terse negative assertions ('The in-app starter is not uploaded', 'Xyvenra does not pay Expo', 'Do not call this from guidance') are unexplained fragments that consume space without giving the agent actionable instruction.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

All four required parameters are documented in the schema and no output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, for a destructive, credentialed dispatch operation the description lacks prerequisites (workflow must exist on that commit), expected outcome, and failure behaviour, leaving it only minimally complete.

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 coverage is 100% and every parameter carries its own description (appId UUID, token handling, 40-char commit, workflow file name). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Uses a specific verb ('Dispatch') against a specific resource ('an existing workflow on the customer's Expo project'), which distinguishes it from siblings like deploy or create_project. It is clear what the tool acts on, though 'dispatch' versus 'deploy' is not explicitly contrasted.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Provides one negative exclusion ('Do not call this from guidance') but no positive when-to-use criteria, prerequisites, or contrast with the deploy sibling. The exclusion is also phrased cryptically enough that an agent may not know what 'from guidance' scopes.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Xyvenra tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?