Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
React Native Expo MCP

React Native Expo MCP

by Divagnz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

architecture_advice

Generate architecture and project structure recommendations for React Native apps based on project type and features.

Instructions

Get React Native architecture and project structure advice

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": {
      "project_type": "<project_type>"
    },
    "name": "architecture_advice"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_typeYesType of React Native project
featuresNoKey features of the app

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description is the sole source. It implies a read-only advisory operation ('Get...advice'), but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects, permissions, or rate limits. For a simple advice tool, this is minimally acceptable but lacks depth.

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 a single, efficient sentence: 'Get React Native architecture and project structure advice'. It conveys the purpose without any wasted words, fitting the conciseness ideal.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basic purpose but does not explain return values or provide additional context about the nature of the advice. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains both parameters (project_type and features). The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema. 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 'Get React Native architecture and project structure advice', which is a specific verb and resource (advice) with a defined scope (React Native architecture). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like analyze_codebase_comprehensive or analyze_component, which focus on code analysis, by emphasizing high-level structure advice.

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?

The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context, or when not to use it. Siblings such as analyze_codebase_comprehensive could overlap, but no differentiation is offered.

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