Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
agent-bridge

agent-bridge

by avas-app
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

bridge.tools

bridge_tools

Lists all tools a running React Native or Expo app exposes so coding agents can discover available actions and invoke them.

Instructions

Every tool this app exposes.

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": "bridge_tools"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNoThe tool's arguments, in order (each any JSON value). Leave out for none.
fullNoReturn a result over 32 KB whole instead of a summary of its size and shape.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.1.2

TDQS

C2/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether calling it is read-only, whether it invokes anything, what the return shape is, or how the 'full' flag changes output, leaving the agent with essentially no operational context.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is a single short fragment, so there is no verbosity, but it is under-specified and lacks a clear subject-verb structure. It does not front-load useful information about what the tool does.

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 two-parameter meta-tool with no output schema, the description should explain what is returned and how 'args' and 'full' affect the result. It says nothing about return values, invocation behavior, or side effects, so it is incomplete relative to the schema.

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%, and both 'args' and 'full' are documented in the input schema. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema's own documentation, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase naming a resource ('every tool this app exposes') but supplies no action verb such as list, describe, or invoke. It does not clearly distinguish whether this tool returns a catalog or performs dispatch, nor does it differentiate from siblings like bridge_logs or agent_bridge_status.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no alternative named. The description does not say whether an agent should call this instead of individual sibling tools or under what conditions the catalog is appropriate.

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