Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
React Native Expo MCP

React Native Expo MCP

by Divagnz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

debug_issue

Identify and resolve React Native issues by specifying issue type, platform, and error message to receive targeted debugging guidance.

Instructions

Get debugging guidance for React Native issues

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": {
      "issue_type": "<issue_type>"
    },
    "name": "debug_issue"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
issue_typeYesType of issue to debug
platformNoPlatform where issue occurs
error_messageNoError message if available

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It fails to disclose any traits such as the type of guidance returned, required permissions, or potential side effects, making it insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 sentence, which is efficient and to the point. However, it could be slightly expanded without losing conciseness to add behavioral or usage context. It earns a high score for brevity but not perfection.

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?

Given the 3 parameters with enums and no output schema, the description is too vague. It does not explain what kind of guidance is returned, how the parameters affect the output, or any expected format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent relying on the description alone.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as context on how parameters interact or impact results. It neither improves nor harms parameter understanding.

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 verb 'get' and the resource 'debugging guidance' for 'React Native issues'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like 'analyze_codebase_performance' or 'optimize_performance' by focusing on general debugging guidance rather than specific analyses.

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 or implicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It does not mention alternatives or exclusion conditions, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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