Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Expo Docs MCP Server

Expo Docs MCP Server

by ah2-io
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

search_expo_docs

Find answers in Expo documentation by searching guides, references, and API details. Filter by section and SDK version for precise results.

Instructions

Search through Expo documentation

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_expo_docs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query for the documentation
sectionNoDocumentation section to search in
versionNoSDK version (e.g., latest, v51.0.0, v50.0.0)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'Search through' without describing return format, pagination, search accuracy, or any side effects. For a search tool, this is insufficient for an agent to understand behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, concise but overly terse. It lacks structure and could benefit from brief elaboration on what 'search' entails. While not verbose, it sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description does not provide enough context. It omits return values, search behavior (e.g., exact vs. fuzzy), and any constraints. The tool's purpose is clear but details are lacking.

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?

Input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds no additional meaning beyond schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since schema already provides parameter details.

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 the action (search) and resource (Expo documentation). It is a straightforward verb+resource but does not distinguish from sibling tools like get_expo_doc_content or get_expo_api_reference, which retrieve specific content rather than search results.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or context such as when to use search vs. direct lookup. Sibling tools provide distinct capabilities but no differentiation is made.

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