Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
React Native Expo MCP

React Native Expo MCP

by Divagnz
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

expo_doctor

Diagnose Expo project issues and optionally apply automatic fixes to resolve them.

Instructions

Diagnose Expo project issues and optionally fix them

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": "expo_doctor"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fix_issuesNoAutomatically fix detected issues

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions diagnosis and optional fixing but does not specify side effects (e.g., file modifications), required permissions, or the scope of issues it handles. This leaves significant ambiguity.

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 efficient sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the verb and resource. However, it may be too concise for a tool that performs potentially impactful operations.

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 (one optional boolean, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but lacks context on what issues are diagnosed, whether it requires network or installed tools, and the return format. Slightly more detail would improve 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?

With 100% schema coverage, the schema already describes the single boolean parameter as 'Automatically fix detected issues'. The description echoes this but adds no additional semantic value beyond what is in the schema.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states that the tool diagnoses Expo project issues and optionally fixes them, using a specific verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like debug_issue or analyze_codebase_comprehensive, which could overlap.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus similar siblings. There is no mention of prerequisites, when not to use it, or context in which it is appropriate.

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