React Native Expo MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

resolve_dependencies

Analyze and resolve dependency conflicts in React Native projects using your preferred package manager. Optionally fix conflicts automatically or generate resolution suggestions.

Instructions

Analyze and resolve dependency conflicts in React Native projects

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": "resolve_dependencies"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`project_path`	No	Path to React Native project root
`package_manager`	No	Package manager to use
`fix_conflicts`	No	Whether to automatically attempt to fix conflicts
`generate_resolutions`	No	Whether to generate resolution suggestions

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.1May 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states 'resolve' but does not clarify if the tool modifies files, requires network, or is safe to run multiple times. Actions like fixing conflicts may be destructive, but no warning is provided.

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?

Single sentence, 10 words, no filler. Conciseness is optimal.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and potential side effects (conflict resolution may modify files), the description is too brief. It omits what the tool returns, whether fixes are applied automatically, and any prerequisites or risks.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond what the schema already provides. No value added.

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?

Description clearly states it analyzes and resolves dependency conflicts in React Native projects. It distinguishes from siblings like 'audit_packages' (which likely only audit) and 'upgrade_packages' (which upgrades). However, it could be more explicit about the scope of 'resolve' (automatic fixes vs suggestions).

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 on when to use this tool over siblings. It does not specify prerequisites, when not to use it, or alternative tools for similar tasks (e.g., 'audit_packages' for analysis only). Agents lack context for selection.

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