Skip to main content
Glama
mattlemmone

Expo MCP Server

by mattlemmone

listTools

Discover and access all development and debugging tools available on the Expo MCP Server for managing Expo-based React Native applications.

Instructions

List all available tools in this MCP server

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'listTools' tool. It accesses the internal '_tools' property of the FastMCP server instance to retrieve the list of registered tools, formats them as a markdown-style list in a text content block, and returns it. Includes error handling with logging.
    execute: async (_, { log }) => {
      try {
        // Get all the tools (this is a workaround since we don't have direct access to the tools list)
        const tools = Object.keys((server as any)["_tools"] || {});
    
        return {
          content: [
            {
              type: "text",
              text: `Available tools:\n${tools
                .map((tool) => `- ${tool}`)
                .join("\n")}`,
            },
          ],
        };
      } catch (error: any) {
        log.error(`Error listing tools: ${error.message}`);
        throw new Error(`Failed to list tools: ${error.message}`);
      }
    },
  • src/index.ts:59-83 (registration)
    Registration of the 'listTools' tool using server.addTool(). Includes the tool name, description, empty parameters schema (no input required), and points to the inline handler function.
    server.addTool({
      name: "listTools",
      description: "List all available tools in this MCP server",
      parameters: z.object({}),
      execute: async (_, { log }) => {
        try {
          // Get all the tools (this is a workaround since we don't have direct access to the tools list)
          const tools = Object.keys((server as any)["_tools"] || {});
    
          return {
            content: [
              {
                type: "text",
                text: `Available tools:\n${tools
                  .map((tool) => `- ${tool}`)
                  .join("\n")}`,
              },
            ],
          };
        } catch (error: any) {
          log.error(`Error listing tools: ${error.message}`);
          throw new Error(`Failed to list tools: ${error.message}`);
        }
      },
    });
  • The Zod schema for listTools input parameters, which is an empty object indicating no input parameters are required.
    parameters: z.object({}),
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. It states the action but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the return format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the essential action and resource, making it highly efficient and easy to parse. Every word earns its place.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate but incomplete. It lacks behavioral context that would be crucial without annotations, such as return format or operational constraints. For a basic list tool, it meets minimum viability but leaves gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there's no need for parameter documentation in the description. The description appropriately doesn't mention parameters, which is correct for this case. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all available tools in this MCP server'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like listFiles, which also lists resources but of a different type. The distinction is implied but not stated.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison to siblings like listFiles. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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

Related 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/mattlemmone/expo-mcp'

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