timps-swarm

timps_mobile_agent

Scaffold React Native, Flutter, or Expo apps with push notifications and deep links configured for mobile development.

Instructions

Scaffold React Native/Flutter/Expo apps with push notifications and deep links.

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": "timps_mobile_agent"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`request`	No	Plain-English task or context for the agent.
`language`	No	Primary programming language (default: python).	python

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv2.2.1Aug 20, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions scaffolding and included features, but does not detail side effects, permissions, or the exact nature of the operation. The agent cannot infer whether this mutates the filesystem, requires network access, or what the end state will be.

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 action and target. However, it lacks any structured breakdown, but for the brevity, it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given the absence of annotations, output schema, and detailed parameter context, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain how the request parameter should be used, what the output or deliverable will be, or any prerequisites. For a tool with 2 parameters and no other structured information, this is insufficient for an agent to effectively use it.

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%: both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what is already provided. Per the rubric, with high coverage, baseline is 3, and the description does not compensate further.

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 clearly states a specific action (scaffold) and resource (React Native/Flutter/Expo apps) with notable features (push notifications, deep links). This distinctly identifies the tool's purpose among the large set of siblings, which are mostly unrelated (web scraping, data pipelines, etc.).

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 use for scaffolding mobile apps but does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It doesn't contrast with any alternative tools or mention scenarios where this would be inappropriate. The context is clear but not exclusive or instructive.

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

Deploy Server