Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ts-diagnostics-mcp

ts-diagnostics-mcp

by GNARC0TICS
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

has_errors

Determine if TypeScript errors exist in your project or a specific file. Returns a boolean result for fast validation.

Instructions

Quick boolean check if there are any TypeScript errors. Optionally check a specific file. Extremely fast - use this before full diagnostic queries.

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": "has_errors"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filePathNoOptional: Path to specific file to check

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It mentions speed and optional file check, but does not specify return value (true/false meaning) or scope (e.g., all files vs. project). Adequate but not fully transparent.

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?

Extremely concise: two sentences with no redundancy. Every word adds value, clearly conveying purpose and usage hint.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple boolean check with one optional parameter, the description is largely sufficient. Minor gap: does not explicitly state that return is true if errors exist, false otherwise. Overall complete for the tool's simplicity.

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% and already describes filePath as optional. Description adds marginal context ('Optionally check a specific file') but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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?

Clearly states it's a quick boolean check for TypeScript errors, with optional file-specific check. Distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing speed and simplicity vs. full diagnostic queries.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly recommends using this before full diagnostic queries, providing clear usage context. Could be improved by listing alternative tools for specific scenarios, but the current guidance is sufficient.

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