React Native Expo MCP

by Divagnz

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

expo_install

Install Expo-compatible packages with version compatibility checks and auto-fix dependency conflicts.

Instructions

Install Expo-compatible packages with version compatibility checks

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": {
      "packages": "<packages>"
    },
    "name": "expo_install"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`packages`	Yes	Package names to install
`check_compatibility`	No	Check Expo SDK compatibility
`fix`	No	Auto-fix dependency conflicts

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1May 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'version compatibility checks' as a behavioral trait, but does not disclose other behaviors like modifying project files or requiring network access. For a simple installation tool, this is minimally adequate.

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?

A single sentence that is direct and contains no extraneous words. Every word serves a purpose.

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 no output schema and simple parameters, the description is minimally complete. However, it lacks additional context such as side effects on project files or dependencies. Could be slightly more informative.

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%, so the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides for the three parameters. Baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('Install') and resource ('Expo-compatible packages'), and adds context ('version compatibility checks'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like expo_upgrade or audit_packages.

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?

The description implies usage for installing packages with compatibility checks but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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