Run TypeScript type checking with tsc --noEmit to catch type errors before a full build. Returns any type errors found in the specified working directory.
Runs TypeScript type checking (tsc --noEmit) and returns any type errors. Use this to catch type errors without running the full build.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cwd | No | Working directory | /app |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does this well by specifying the exact command and the read-only nature of '--noEmit' while stating that the result is any type errors. It could add more about return formatting or failure modes, but the core behavioral model is clear.
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?
Two purposeful sentences with no filler. The primary action is front-loaded, and the usage tip earns its place by clarifying why this tool exists alongside heavier alternatives.
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?
For a simple one-parameter, no-output-schema checking tool, the description is complete: it states what runs, what it returns, and when to use it. No critical information for a correct invocation is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema alone fully documents the single 'cwd' parameter. The description does not add extra meaning about parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because no compensation is needed.
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 names a specific verb ('Runs'), a concrete resource ('TypeScript type checking'), and the exact command ('tsc --noEmit'), and immediately distinguishes itself from a full build. This lets an agent clearly separate it from sibling tools like run_lint or verify_build.
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?
It explicitly says to use this to catch type errors without running the full build, which gives clear contextual guidance. It does not explicitly name alternate tools like run_lint or verify_build, so it stops short of full when-not-to-use coverage.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.