Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
React Native Expo MCP

React Native Expo MCP

by Divagnz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

expo_dev_read

Retrieve logs from an active Expo development server to debug and monitor app behavior.

Instructions

Read logs from running Expo dev server

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "expo_dev_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYesDev server session ID
tailNoNumber of recent log lines to return (default: 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The description only states it reads logs, but provides no details on behavior such as whether it is blocking, error conditions, or output format. With no annotations, this is insufficient disclosure.

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 very concise at one sentence, but it earns its place by conveying the essential purpose. Could be slightly improved with a bit more context, but it's efficient.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description is overly minimal. It does not explain what the logs contain, line format, or pagination. More detail is needed for completeness.

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% with both parameters well-described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score 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 action (read), resource (logs), and context (running Expo dev server). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like expo_dev_start or expo_dev_stop.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for reading logs, but does not mention when not to use or provide comparisons with other tools.

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