Retrieve TypeScript type definitions (types.ts) for a specified @gaddario98 React package to support type-safe coding and API understanding.
Get the TypeScript type definitions (types.ts) for a specific @gaddario98 React package
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| packageId | Yes | Package identifier: 'react-form', 'react-queries', or 'react-pages' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation (getting type definitions) and doesn't mention any side effects or permissions, but it fails to disclose any behavioral traits like caching, rate limits, or output format. It's adequate but minimal.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and contains no extraneous information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the fact that the schema fully describes the parameter, the description is largely complete for an agent to call it correctly. However, it could benefit from explicit usage guidelines or behavioral notes, so it's not perfect.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single parameter with a list of allowed values. The description adds no extra meaning about the parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb (Get) and the resource (TypeScript type definitions for a specific React package). It is reasonably specific, mentioning the file name types.ts. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_package_source, which might also retrieve files. Without that differentiation, it's a 4 rather than a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 such as get_package_docs, get_package_source, or search_source. It merely states what it does, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.