ts-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Doc Comment Template

docCommentTemplate

Read-only

Generate a JSDoc comment template for a function, method, or class based on its signature, with @param and @returns tags.

Instructions

Generate a JSDoc comment template for a function, method, or class at a position. Returns the template text with @param, @returns, etc. based on the function signature. The returned text can be inserted above the function declaration.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "line": "<line>",
      "offset": "<offset>"
    },
    "name": "docCommentTemplate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	Yes	File path (absolute or relative to cwd)
`line`	Yes	1-based line number
`offset`	Yes	1-based column offset

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.1Jul 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating no side effects. The description adds the detail that the returned text can be inserted above the function declaration, but does not provide further behavioral insights. Minimal additional value.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is two sentences long, front-loading the purpose and adding a usage hint. No wasted words; every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple tool with 3 required params, full schema coverage, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is sufficient. It communicates the core function and return value. Could mention that the function must be parseable, but not critical.

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%, so the description has low burden. It mentions 'at a position' but offers no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions for file, line, and offset. Baseline score applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states the tool generates a JSDoc comment template for a function, method, or class, specifying the verb 'Generate' and resource 'JSDoc comment template'. It also mentions the output includes @param and @returns tags based on function signature, distinguishing it from sibling tools like signatureHelp.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites or situations where this tool should not be used, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the description alone.

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