Skip to main content
Glama
code-alchemist01

Development Tools MCP Server

check_typescript

Identify and report TypeScript type errors in specified files to ensure code correctness during development.

Instructions

Check TypeScript files for type errors

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filesYesTypeScript file paths to check

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler function that implements the TypeScript checking logic. Currently a simplified placeholder that returns no errors unless an exception occurs.
    async checkTypeScript(_filePath: string): Promise<{
      errors: Array<{ line: number; column: number; message: string; code: string }>;
      valid: boolean;
    }> {
      // This is a simplified version. In production, we'd use TypeScript compiler API
      // For now, return basic validation
      try {
        // Basic TypeScript syntax checks
        const errors: Array<{ line: number; column: number; message: string; code: string }> = [];
        
        // This is a simplified version. In production, we'd use TypeScript compiler API
        // For now, return empty errors array
    
        return {
          errors,
          valid: errors.length === 0,
        };
      } catch (error) {
        return {
          errors: [
            {
              line: 1,
              column: 1,
              message: error instanceof Error ? error.message : 'Unknown error',
              code: 'UNKNOWN',
            },
          ],
          valid: false,
        };
      }
    }
  • Registers the 'check_typescript' tool in the lintingTools array, including name, description, and input schema.
    {
      name: 'check_typescript',
      description: 'Check TypeScript files for type errors',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          files: {
            type: 'array',
            items: { type: 'string' },
            description: 'TypeScript file paths to check',
          },
        },
        required: ['files'],
      },
    },
  • The dispatch handler in handleLintingTool that extracts input files and calls the checkTypeScript utility for each file.
    case 'check_typescript': {
      const files = params.files as string[];
      const results = await Promise.all(
        files.map((file) => lintingUtils.checkTypeScript(file))
      );
      return results;
    }
  • Imports the LintingUtils class containing the checkTypeScript handler.
    import { LintingUtils } from '../utils/linting-utils.js';
    import { Formatters } from '../utils/formatters.js';
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'check' implies a read-only analysis operation, the description doesn't specify whether this tool modifies files, requires specific TypeScript configurations, has performance implications, or provides structured output. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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, efficient sentence that states the core functionality without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward tool and front-loads the essential information. Every word earns its place in communicating the tool's purpose.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (type checking can involve configuration, dependencies, and detailed output), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It identifies what the tool does but doesn't address behavioral aspects, output format, or integration context that would help an agent use it effectively. The description meets basic requirements but leaves important contextual gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage with the 'files' parameter clearly documented as 'TypeScript file paths to check'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema documentation, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate - the description doesn't enhance parameter understanding but doesn't need to compensate for gaps.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('TypeScript files for type errors'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'validate_syntax' or 'lint_code' by focusing specifically on type checking rather than general syntax validation or linting. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all potential alternatives like 'analyze_code_quality' which might include type checking as part of broader analysis.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for code analysis (e.g., 'validate_syntax', 'lint_code', 'analyze_code_quality'), there's no indication whether this tool is preferred for TypeScript type checking specifically, whether it should be used before/after other tools, or what scenarios it's designed for. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

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/code-alchemist01/development-tools-mcp-Server'

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