Validates EAS workflow YAML syntax and configuration. Use this after creating a workflow to ensure it is valid. Provide either appId (from app.json "extra.eas.projectId") OR appFullName (e.g., "@owner/my-app").
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| appId | No | ||
| appFullName | No | ||
| workflowYaml | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context that validation happens after creation and requires app identity via appId or appFullName, which goes beyond the schema.
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 sentences with no filler. The first sentence states the action and object, and the second provides usage timing and parameter guidance. Every sentence 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 validation tool with only three flat parameters, the description covers purpose, timing, and identifier selection. The lack of detail about workflowYaml format and expected output is a minor gap, but overall the description is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool in most cases.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does explain the appId/appFullName either-or relationship and appId provenance, but it adds no meaning for the required workflowYaml parameter, which is the core input. This is a notable gap.
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 begins with a specific verb and resource: 'Validates EAS workflow YAML syntax and configuration.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling workflow tools like create, run, info, list, and cancel.
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 says to use this 'after creating a workflow to ensure it is valid,' providing clear contextual timing. It does not state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most build/workflow tools are clearly separated by resource and action, but some boundaries are blurry: expo_learn overlaps with expo_search_documentation/expo_read_documentation, and connect/toolkit_info/authenticate all touch connection and auth state. Agents may need to read descriptions carefully to avoid picking the wrong one.
The Expo-specific tools follow a strong expo_<domain>_<action> snake_case pattern, e.g., expo_build_cancel, expo_workflow_create, expo_search_documentation. The non-prefixed platform tools like authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, and show_version break the pattern, but they read as a separate platform services group rather than random inconsistency.
25 tools is at the heavy end, but the scope is broad: EAS builds, EAS workflows, TestFlight, documentation, auth, and platform maintenance each contribute natural clusters of tools. A few generic helpers like marketplace and show_version could arguably live elsewhere, but the overall size is defensible.
The build lifecycle and workflow lifecycle are well covered: create/run/list/info/cancel/logs exist for workflows, and run/list/info/cancel/logs/submit exist for builds. Documentation search/read support is solid; minor gaps like removing or updating installed libraries and exposing EAS Update tooling prevent a perfect score.