TypeScript MCP

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose with no overlap: delete_symbol removes symbols, find_references locates usages, get_definitions provides definitions, get_diagnostics checks errors, get_module_symbols lists exports, get_symbols_in_scope shows local symbols, get_type_at_symbol gives type info at a location, get_type_in_module provides detailed signatures, mcp__typescript__move_directory and move_file handle file/directory moves, and rename_symbol renames symbols. The descriptions precisely differentiate their functions.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., delete_symbol, find_references, get_definitions), but there is a minor deviation with mcp__typescript__move_directory, which uses a prefixed format. This single outlier slightly disrupts the otherwise predictable naming convention, though the pattern remains readable and functional.
Tool Count5/5
With 11 tools, the count is well-scoped for a TypeScript code analysis and refactoring server. Each tool serves a specific, non-redundant purpose, such as symbol manipulation, type checking, and file management, making the set comprehensive yet manageable without bloat.
Completeness5/5
The tool set provides complete coverage for TypeScript/JavaScript codebase operations, including symbol management (delete, rename, find references), type information retrieval (definitions, types, diagnostics), module analysis (symbols, exports), and file handling (move file/directory with import updates). There are no obvious gaps; agents can perform full CRUD-like workflows and refactoring tasks seamlessly.
Average 3.2/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- Last stable release on July 3, 2025
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI is failing
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('find all references') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'find'), performance considerations (e.g., might be slow for large codebases), error handling, or output format. For a tool with 4 required parameters and no annotations, 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Find all references to a TypeScript/JavaScript symbol across the codebase'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.
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?
Given the complexity (4 required parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'references' means in this context (e.g., includes imports, calls, etc.), how results are returned, or any limitations. For a tool that likely returns structured data about code references, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (filePath, line, root, symbolName). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how 'line' interacts with 'symbolName' or format examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.
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 ('find') and resource ('references to a TypeScript/JavaScript symbol') with scope ('across the codebase'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_definitions' or 'get_symbols_in_scope' by focusing on references rather than definitions or scope-limited symbols. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from tools like 'get_type_at_symbol' which might overlap in some contexts.
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 like 'get_definitions' or 'get_symbols_in_scope'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a codebase root) or exclusions (e.g., not for finding definitions). The context is implied but not explicit, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe what 'definition(s)' includes (e.g., code snippets, metadata), how results are returned, or any limitations like rate limits or permissions needed for file access. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 6 parameters.
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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity (6 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error handling, or how the tool interacts with the TypeScript environment, which is crucial for effective use. This falls short of providing enough context for a tool of this nature.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 6 parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as explaining the relationship between 'filePath' and 'root' or clarifying 'line' usage. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 ('Get') and resource ('definition(s) of a TypeScript symbol'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_symbols_in_scope' or 'get_type_at_symbol', which might offer similar functionality, so it misses the highest score.
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 like 'get_type_at_symbol' or 'find_references'. It lacks context about prerequisites or typical scenarios, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves symbols 'without detailed signatures', hinting at limited output detail, but fails to describe critical behaviors like error handling (e.g., invalid module names), performance (e.g., speed for large modules), or output format (e.g., list of symbols vs. structured data). For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap, scoring 2 for vague behavioral hints.
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 front-loads the core purpose ('Get all exported symbols...') and adds a key constraint ('without detailed signatures'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding, earning a 5.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on output (what symbols look like), error cases, or integration with siblings. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more context for effective use, but it falls short, scoring 2 for being under-specified relative to the tool's needs.
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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'moduleName' as 'The module to analyze'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as examples for 'filePath' usage or constraints on 'root'. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.
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 ('Get') and resource ('exported symbols from a TypeScript/JavaScript module'), specifying the scope ('without detailed signatures'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_symbols_in_scope' or 'get_definitions' by focusing on exported symbols from a module rather than local symbols or definitions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.
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 like 'get_symbols_in_scope' or 'get_definitions'. It lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., needing a module name) or exclusions (e.g., not for detailed type analysis). This leaves the agent without clear usage direction, scoring 2 for minimal implied usage from the purpose alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: it doesn't mention error conditions (e.g., invalid file paths or symbols), performance characteristics, or what the output looks like (though there's no output schema). For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational behavior.
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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the main action ('Get type information') and specifies the domain and scope concisely, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the complexity of a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like error handling or output format, and while the schema covers parameters well, the overall context for safe and effective use is lacking, especially compared to sibling tools in the server.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying that 'symbol' refers to TypeScript/JavaScript identifiers and 'location' involves file paths and line numbers, which is already clear from the schema. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.
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 ('Get type information') and resource ('for a TypeScript/JavaScript symbol at a specific location'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_type_in_module' or 'get_definitions', which likely serve related but distinct purposes in the TypeScript/JavaScript analysis context.
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 sibling tools like 'get_type_in_module' or 'get_definitions', nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts where this tool is appropriate versus others in the server's toolset.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Get detailed signature information') but does not describe the return format, error conditions, performance characteristics (e.g., rate limits), or side effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, 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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get detailed signature information') and specifies the target ('specific type from a module') with useful examples of type categories. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's function without redundancy.
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?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., what 'detailed signature information' includes), error handling, and behavioral context. Without annotations or output schema, the agent has insufficient information to use this tool effectively beyond basic invocation.
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%, with clear descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'Context file for resolving relative imports' for filePath). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is added.
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 'Get' and the resource 'detailed signature information for a specific type from a module', specifying the type categories (function, class, interface, type alias, etc.). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_module_symbols' (which lists symbols) and 'get_type_at_symbol' (which analyzes a location rather than a named type), though not explicitly. The purpose is specific but could better differentiate from similar tools.
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 like 'get_module_symbols' (for listing types) or 'get_type_at_symbol' (for analyzing a symbol at a location). It implies usage for detailed type analysis but lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the destructive action ('Delete') and the scope of deletion ('all its references'), but lacks critical details such as whether the operation is reversible, what permissions are needed, how errors are handled, or what the output looks like. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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 front-loads the core action and resource without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information about the tool's purpose and scope.
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?
Given the complexity of a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical aspects like error handling, confirmation prompts, side effects on dependent code, or return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand the tool's full behavior.
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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters beyond implying that 'symbolName' refers to a TypeScript/JavaScript symbol and 'removeReferences' relates to deleting references. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Delete') and target resource ('TypeScript/JavaScript symbol'), including what types of symbols are affected ('variable, function, class, etc.') and the scope ('and all its references'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'rename_symbol' by specifying deletion rather than modification.
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 like 'rename_symbol' or 'find_references', nor does it mention prerequisites, constraints, or typical scenarios for deletion. It states what the tool does but not when it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves—such as whether it requires TypeScript configuration, how it handles missing files, what the output format looks like, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every element ('Get TypeScript diagnostics', 'errors, warnings', 'for a single file') earns its place by clarifying scope and function, making it easy to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return values, error handling, or behavioral nuances like how diagnostics are generated or what happens with invalid inputs. For a diagnostic tool with rich parameter schema but missing output details, more context is needed to be fully helpful.
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%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how 'virtualContent' interacts with 'filePath' or provide examples). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation effectively.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Get TypeScript diagnostics') and resource ('for a single file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'get_definitions' or 'get_symbols_in_scope' which focus on different aspects of TypeScript analysis. It specifies the scope (errors, warnings) and single-file limitation, making the purpose immediately understandable.
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 like 'get_type_at_symbol' or 'find_references', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It implies usage for TypeScript file analysis but lacks context about when this specific diagnostic tool is appropriate compared to other analysis tools in the sibling set.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions renaming 'across the codebase,' implying a refactoring operation, but lacks details on permissions, side effects, error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral disclosure.
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 front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, target, scope, and examples.
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 complex mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, and return values, which are critical for an agent to use the tool effectively in a codebase context.
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%, so the schema already documents all five parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Rename') and target ('TypeScript symbol'), specifying the scope ('across the codebase') and listing examples of symbol types (variable, function, class, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like 'delete_symbol' or 'find_references' by focusing on renaming rather than deletion or querying.
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 like 'delete_symbol' or 'find_references', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 mentions updating import statements, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't disclose critical details like whether this is a destructive operation (it moves files), what happens on failure, permission requirements, or rate limits. For a file mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
Single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff. The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main action.
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 file mutation tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It should address behavioral aspects like safety (destructive nature), error handling, and what the tool returns. The mention of import updates is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.
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%, so the schema already documents all 4 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain path format conventions or import update mechanics). Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Move'), resource ('TypeScript/JavaScript file'), and scope ('to a new location and update all import statements'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'rename_symbol' (renaming within same file) and 'mcp__typescript__move_directory' (moving directories).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for moving files with import updates, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'rename_symbol' for renaming symbols or 'mcp__typescript__move_directory' for moving directories. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 what the tool does but lacks behavioral details: no information about permissions needed, rate limits, error conditions, output format, or whether it's a read-only operation. 'Get' implies read-only, but this isn't explicitly confirmed.
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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the core purpose, no wasted words. Every element (verb, resource, location constraint, language context) earns its place efficiently.
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?
For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal. It covers the purpose but lacks behavioral context (e.g., output format, error handling) and usage guidance relative to siblings. It's adequate but has clear gaps given the complexity.
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%, so parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying location-based filtering. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('all symbols visible at a specific location'), specifies the language context ('TypeScript/JavaScript file'), and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_module_symbols' (module-level) or 'get_type_at_symbol' (type-focused). It's specific about scope and resource type.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for symbol visibility at a location, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_module_symbols' (for module-level symbols) or 'find_references' (for finding usages). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of automatically updating TypeScript imports and references, which is valuable beyond basic move operations. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects like error handling, permission requirements, or whether the operation is atomic/reversible, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.
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 front-loads the core action and immediately adds the unique value proposition (automatic import updates). Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete for a 3-parameter mutation tool. It covers the purpose and key behavior but lacks details on error conditions, return values, or integration with sibling tools. The automatic import update feature adds value, but more context would improve completeness.
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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain path formats or import-update specifics). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the specific action ('Move a directory'), the resource ('directory'), and the additional functionality ('updating all TypeScript imports and references automatically'). It distinguishes from the sibling 'move_file' tool by specifying directory-level operations versus file-level operations.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage context through 'updating all TypeScript imports and references automatically,' suggesting this tool should be used when moving directories in TypeScript projects to maintain import integrity. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus 'move_file' or other alternatives, nor does it provide exclusion criteria or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![lsmcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mizchi/lsmcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mizchi/lsmcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![lsmcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mizchi/lsmcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/mizchi/lsmcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/mizchi/lsmcp'

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