Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
React Native Expo MCP

React Native Expo MCP

by Divagnz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

analyze_test_coverage

Analyze test coverage in React Native projects to identify untested code and generate detailed reports, helping maintain quality standards.

Instructions

Analyze test coverage and identify gaps

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "analyze_test_coverage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_pathNoPath to React Native project root
coverage_thresholdNoMinimum coverage threshold percentage
generate_reportNoGenerate detailed coverage report

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description must convey behavior. It does not disclose whether the tool runs tests, parses coverages files, or has side effects. The read-only nature is implied but not explicit.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single short sentence, which is concise. However, it may be too brief given the lack of output schema and annotations.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Without an output schema, the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not describe the output format, behavior, or prerequisites, leaving significant gaps for a 3-parameter tool.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's function (analyze test coverage and identify gaps) with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_testing_strategy' and 'generate_component_test'.

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 vs alternatives (e.g., 'analyze_testing_strategy') or when not to use it. The description lacks explicit usage context.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools