Skip to main content
Glama
KalinYorgov

React Native Upgrade Helper MCP Server

by KalinYorgov
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have distinct purposes: one provides high-level upgrade information between versions, the other retrieves specific file diffs. No overlap or confusion in their intended use.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools use a consistent 'get_' prefix followed by a noun phrase in snake_case ('upgrade_info', 'file_diff'), establishing a clear naming pattern.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only two tools, the server feels minimal for the stated purpose of upgrade assistance. While it's a focused set, it's on the borderline of being too thin, as a typical upgrade helper might require more granular operations.

    Completeness2/5

    The toolset lacks a way to discover which files changed between versions, making get_file_diff difficult to use without external knowledge. Additionally, there is no tool to list available React Native versions, creating a notable gap that could cause agent failures.

  • Average 3.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavioral traits. 'Extract' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not explicitly state side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or what the output represents. The agent is left guessing about the tool's behavior.

    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 sentence with no fluff, making it concise and easy to parse. It front-loads the primary action and resource. However, it is perhaps too terse given the tool's complexity, though this does not hurt conciseness itself.

    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?

    The description is not complete for a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It fails to explain what 'upgrade information' entails, what the return format is, or any prerequisites. An agent cannot fully understand the tool's behavior or expected results from the description alone.

    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%, so all parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds minimal semantic value beyond restating 'between two versions' which corresponds to the fromVersion and toVersion parameters. The optional parameters packageName and projectName are not mentioned in the description but are fully covered 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 uses a specific verb ('Extract') and names the resource ('React Native upgrade information') with the scoping 'between two versions'. It is clear about the core function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling get_file_diff, which likely serves a different purpose.

    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?

    The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no context about when it is appropriate to invoke. There is no mention of when not to use it or how it relates to get_file_diff.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    There are no annotations provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. However, it only states 'Get specific file differences' without explaining what the diff looks like, whether it's read-only, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap in a tool with no annotation support.

    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?

    The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that states the purpose without any filler or redundancy. It is appropriately concise for its simplicity.

    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?

    With no output schema and no annotations, the description needs to explain return values and behavioral context, but it does not. Given the tool has 5 parameters and one sibling, the description is too lean to be considered adequately complete, especially since it doesn't clarify what the diff output looks like or how it differs from get_upgrade_info.

    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?

    The schema provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema already offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate when schema coverage is high.

    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 'get' and resource 'specific file differences', clearly indicating it retrieves diffs for a particular file. The phrase 'for React Native upgrade' adds context, and it distinguishes from the sibling tool get_upgrade_info, which presumably handles general upgrade information.

    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 in the React Native upgrade process, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus get_upgrade_info or any exclusions. It provides minimal usage context but no direct alternatives or when-not-to-use guidance.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

RN-upgrade-helper-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

RN-upgrade-helper-MCP MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/KalinYorgov/RN-upgrade-helper-MCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server