Assists with migrating Angular Reactive Forms to Angular Signal Forms by finding form constructs in the codebase, supplying verified before-to-after migration recipes, analyzing migration complexity, and checking migrated code for known issues.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@angular-signal-forms-migration-mcp Find all FormBuilder usages in src/app/checkout and tell me which need judgment calls."
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
An MCP server that helps an AI coding agent migrate Angular Reactive Forms to Angular Signal Forms.
It finds the Reactive Forms constructs in your codebase, separates the safe mechanical renames from the ones that need a human decision, and hands back before→after recipes that are verified against a real Angular release rather than written from memory.
Requires Node.js 20+. Nothing to clone — npx fetches it on demand.
claude mcp add signal-forms-migration -- npx -y angular-signal-forms-migration-mcp@latestOr add it to any MCP client config:
{
"mcpServers": {
"signal-forms-migration": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "angular-signal-forms-migration-mcp@latest"]
}
}
}@latest makes npx re-resolve on every launch, so restarting your editor picks up new
releases. Without it, npx keeps serving whichever version it cached first — repoint the
config at @latest, or clear the cache with npm cache clean --force.
The server also checks for a newer version once a day and writes a one-line notice to
stderr. It is throttled, times out after 2 seconds, never touches stdout, and stays
silent on any failure. To turn it off, add
"env": { "SIGNAL_FORMS_MCP_NO_UPDATE_CHECK": "1" } to the config block above. To see what
is actually running:
npx angular-signal-forms-migration-mcp@latest --versionDo not npm install this into your Angular app. It is a standalone process your
editor spawns, not a library your project depends on. npx keeps it in a cache outside
your project entirely.
It detects and advises. It never edits your code. There is no tool here that writes to your source files, and there never will be. The server returns findings and recipes; your agent decides what to change and makes the edits, so every change still goes through your normal review and version control.
Related MCP server: VA Form Generation MCP Server
> Migrate the forms in src/app/checkout to Signal Forms.
1. find_form_candidates { path: ".../src/app/checkout" }
→ 9 findings across 2 files: 6 mechanical, 3 judgment
(the FormArray of line items is judgment — its shape changes)
2. get_signalforms_recipe { construct: "FormBuilder.group" }
→ before/after + caveats
3. the agent applies the edits, you review the diff
4. verify_migration { path: ".../checkout.component.ts" }
→ traps that compile and are still wrongA migration report leads with the things that make migration impossible, because a plan you cannot execute is worse than no plan:
Angular 21+. @angular/forms/signals does not exist before v21. Below that the
server returns an upgrade plan instead of a migration plan.
Declared and installed versions agree. An old branch checked out over newer
node_modules straddles the v21 line. Migrating against what is installed means the
next npm ci reverts you to a version where the target API is absent — so the server
refuses to pick a side and says so.
moduleResolution is exports-aware (bundler, node16, or nodenext).
@angular/forms/signals is a package-exports subpath; legacy node resolution cannot
see it, and the import fails with an error that looks like a missing dependency.
Tool | What it answers |
| Where are the Reactive Forms constructs, and which need a person? |
| What is the verified before→after for this construct? |
| How big is this job, and which file should I start with? |
| Give me the whole thing as one markdown document. |
| I already migrated this — what compiles but is still wrong? |
| I am below v21. How do I get to a version that supports this? |
Full parameters, response shapes and scope limits: docs/TOOLS.md.
Signal Forms is new and is not reliably present in any model's training data — recipes written from memory are wrong in ways that look right. So none of these are.
Recipes are verified against Angular v22 using the official Angular CLI MCP server,
cross-checked against angular.dev, and carry structured provenance
(verifiedAgainstVersion, retrievedISO, sources) that ships in the tool response so
your agent can judge how current the advice is. A recipe with an empty sources list
fails CI.
Where the docs do not answer the question, the recipe says so in its caveats rather
than inventing an answer — UNVERIFIED — confirm on <url>, or UNVERIFIED — tool-authored guidance where Angular documents no migration path at all (the RxJS stream tiers are the
main case: the primitives are documented and compile, but choosing between them is this
tool's judgement, not Angular's). 14 of 37 recipes currently carry such a marker. That
is the honest part of the output, not an oversight — and a test keeps this number true.
The recipes also compile. CI installs a real @angular/forms@22 and typechecks
fixtures exercising every API the recipes use, so a recipe naming a function that does not
exist — or calling it with the wrong argument shape — fails the build. That is what
established disabled(path, { when }) as the v22 signature; the docs demonstrate neither
it nor the nested schema() + apply() composition.
Two things this caught that memory gets wrong:
The binding directive is [formField] / FormField — not [control] / Control,
which appeared in pre-release v21 material and is what models reproduce.
disabled() / hidden() gained an options-object form on v22 and marked the bare
callback @deprecated rather than removing it — so a v21-shaped rule still compiles,
with a warning. Established by diffing the shipped overloads, not the guides.
Recipes whose behaviour genuinely differs across releases carry a VERSION-SENSITIVE
caveat naming the form each version takes, and the server resolves them against your
project's detected version. Read the caveats array — that is where the sharp edges
live.
The re-verification procedure for a new Angular release is REVERIFICATION.md.
Not every Reactive Forms pattern has a Signal Forms equivalent, and a migration tool that
pretends otherwise is worse than none. Form streams are graded by the RxJS operators in
their .pipe() chain:
Tier | Operators | Answer |
trivial | none / bare |
|
moderate |
|
|
hard |
| no direct equivalent |
For the hard tier the recipe says so outright and offers three real strategies — async
validation rules, rxResource, or keeping RxJS behind toObservable/toSignal — rather
than inventing a one-liner that does not exist.
Likewise addControl() / removeControl() have no counterpart at all: the field tree is
derived from the model signal's type. The recipe explains the three actual answers instead
of implying an API that would not compile.
Edit your files. By design, permanently.
Prove your migration is correct. verify_migration proves the absence of known
defects. Run it after tsc, not instead of it.
Migrate template-driven forms. ngModel migration is undocumented upstream;
guessing it would be the exact failure mode this project exists to avoid.
Read template literals with ${...} substitutions, because their text is not what
the Angular compiler sees. Inline template: strings without substitutions are
scanned.
Scan CSS/SCSS, or resolve types across files — detection is a single-file syntactic
pass, not a ts.Program.
ROADMAP.md tracks these; the migration report repeats them in its own "Scope" section rather than letting the totals imply completeness.
Use both. The official @angular/cli MCP server knows about Angular; this one knows
about migration — which constructs exist in your code, which are mechanical, which need
a decision, and what the verified replacement is. Your agent can pull findings and recipes
from here, then confirm anything current or project-specific there before it edits.
Feature-complete through M16. Six tools ship, with doc-verified recipes covering basic
constructs, arrays, runtime shape mutation, async validators, custom controls, the three
RxJS stream tiers, reading and writing form state, submission, model-shape constraints,
CSS status classes, spec-file migration, and the .html template layer — bindings, state
reads, the <select multiple> blocker, and the silent error-key rename.
The transport is stdio, so stdout is reserved for the protocol and all logging goes to stderr.
Contributions and local development: CONTRIBUTING.md.
MIT
Scans .ts and .html files (or a directory) and summarises the migration: total findings, counts per construct, the mechanical/judgment split, and a suggested file order (simplest first, so all-mechanical files land before the ones needing design decisions). Read-only: this tool never modifies your files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path to a .ts file or a directory to scan recursively. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| byConstruct | Yes | |
| judgmentCount | Yes | |
| totalFindings | Yes | |
| angularVersion | Yes | |
| suggestedOrder | Yes | |
| mechanicalCount | Yes | |
| referenceOnlyFiles | Yes | |
| blockingPrerequisite | Yes | |
| sharedValidatorFiles | Yes | |
| signalFormsAvailable | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the behavior is largely covered structurally. The description reinforces the read-only guarantee and adds context about scanning behavior and result structure, but it does not disclose edge cases such as invalid paths or recursion behavior beyond what is already implied.
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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence states the input and output details directly, and the second provides a clear read-only safety note. There is no fluff, redundancy, or unnecessary beat-around-the-bush phrasing.
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?
The tool has one required parameter, a simple input schema, output schema coverage, and clear annotations. The description supplies all the essential operational context: file types scanned, summarization outputs, file ordering rationale, and the mutation safety guarantee. Nothing critical 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?
The schema already documents the single path parameter with 100% coverage. The description further clarifies that the tool scans .ts and .html files, and notes the directory alternative, adding practical meaning beyond the schema. There is slight ambiguity about whether a standalone .html file path is accepted, but overall the description usefully extends the schema.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it scans .ts and .html files or a directory and summarises the migration. It also enumerates concrete outputs such as total findings, per-construct counts, and the mechanical/judgment split, which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like verify_migration or get_migration_report.
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 explains what the tool does and what it returns, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings such as find_form_candidates or get_angular_upgrade_plan. It does not provide exclusions or an explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use scenario, leaving usage mostly implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Scans .ts and .html files (or a directory) for Angular Reactive Forms constructs and classifies each finding as "mechanical" (safe to transliterate) or "judgment" (a human must decide the target design). Read-only: this tool never modifies your files. Results are PAGED (default 200 findings) — check incomplete: non-null means there is more, and says how to get it. Filter with constructs / classification to work one decision at a time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path to a .ts file or a directory to scan recursively. | |
| limit | No | Maximum findings to return. Defaults to 200. A whole workspace can be far larger than one context window, so the response is a window and says so when it is. | |
| offset | No | Index of the first finding to return. Defaults to 0. Page with page.nextOffset. | |
| constructs | No | Return only these construct names (e.g. ["FormArray.push"]). Use it to pull one decision at a time. Filtering is announced in `incomplete`. | |
| classification | No | Return only "mechanical" or only "judgment" findings. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| page | Yes | |
| files | Yes | |
| incomplete | Yes | Non-null when this response is NOT the full result, with the call that returns the rest. Null means complete. Never treat a filtered or paged list as the whole job. |
| totalFindings | Yes | Findings in the whole scan, unfiltered. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Despite readOnlyHint being true, the description goes well beyond that by explicitly stating the tool never modifies files, results are paged, the default page size, and what `incomplete` means. It also communicates the mechanical/judgment classification logic, which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
Three dense sentences each carry distinct value: scanning scope, read-only guarantee, paging, and filter guidance. The most important details are front-loaded and there is no filler.
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?
The tool is a read-only scanning utility, and the description covers all relevant operational aspects: input scope, safety, classification semantics, paging, and filtering. The presence of an output schema further covers return details, so no necessary information 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?
The schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is high. The description adds value by framing constructs/classification as a 'work one decision at a time' workflow and by highlighting paging constraints in the overall behavior.
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 operation (scans .ts and .html files or a directory), the object (Angular Reactive Forms constructs), and the output distinction (mechanical vs. judgment). This differentiates it from sibling tools like analyze_migration_complexity or get_migration_report, which focus on broader analysis or reporting.
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 describes path-based scanning, result filtering, and pagination workflow, saying to check `incomplete` for more results. It does not explicitly say when NOT to use this tool in favor of a sibling, but the operational guidance for how to use this tool is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Signal Forms needs Angular 21+. When a project is older, this returns the upgrade plan as markdown, reproducing angular.dev/update-guide from Angular's own published step data — not written by this server. The current version is detected from the project; you choose application complexity (1 Basic, 2 Medium, 3 Advanced) and whether you use ngUpgrade, Angular Material or Windows, exactly as the official guide asks. Read-only: this tool never modifies your files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path inside the Angular project. The current version is read from its package.json. | |
| level | No | Application complexity, as on angular.dev/update-guide: 1 Basic, 2 Medium, 3 Advanced. Defaults to 3. | |
| toMajor | No | Target major. Defaults to the version the recipes are verified against. | |
| windows | No | "I use Windows." Swaps in cmd-compatible commands. | |
| material | No | "I use Angular Material." | |
| fromMajor | No | Override the detected current major version. | |
| ngUpgrade | No | "I use ngUpgrade to combine AngularJS & Angular." |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| markdown | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: this tool never modifies your files.' It adds meaningful context beyond the annotations: the plan is reproduced from Angular's published step data (not written by this server), the output is markdown, and the current version is auto-detected from the project with optional overrides. It just does not cover edge cases such as what happens when the project is already above the required version.
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?
Four sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and the trigger condition ('When a project is older, this returns the upgrade plan'). Each sentence pulls its weight: requirement, result/format/source, input choices matching the official guide, and the read-only guarantee. It is a touch dense but there is no dead weight and no repetition of the raw schema.
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 read-only tool with full parameter descriptions, an output schema, and explicit read-only annotations, this description covers nearly everything: why it exists (Signal Forms needs 21+), when to call it (older projects), what comes back (official markdown plan), and which input choices to make (the official questionnaire parameters). Minor gaps remain, such as expected behavior when the project is already current or how the detected version is resolved from package.json, but these are edge cases, not blocking gaps.
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 each parameter already has a description, defaults, and constraints in the input schema. The description adds only slight glue (the choices are exactly what the official guide asks, the version is detected from the project), which is helpful but not a substantial extension of the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate here; a higher score would require the description to clarify meanings the schema left unexplained.
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 states a concrete deliverable — 'the upgrade plan as markdown' reproducing angular.dev/update-guide from Angular's published step data — and anchors it to a requirement (Signal Forms needs Angular 21+). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like analyze_migration_complexity and get_migration_report, which are about analysis and reporting rather than the official step-by-step upgrade plan. The verb (returns) and the resource (the Angular plan from the official guide) are precise.
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 gives a clear trigger condition: use it when a project is older than Angular 21+ so the tool emits the official upgrade plan. It also helps the agent select the right parameters by telling it to choose complexity and options 'exactly as the official guide asks.' It does not explicitly name the siblings as alternatives or say when not to use it, which keeps it below 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Scans .ts and .html files (or a directory) and returns a MARKDOWN REPORT combining findings, complexity, a suggested file order, the constructs present with their recipe names, and a warning for any version-sensitive recipe involved. Returns the report as a string — it does NOT write a file; you decide whether to save it. Read-only: this tool never modifies your files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path to a .ts file or a directory to scan recursively. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| markdown | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description clearly discloses that the tool is read-only and does not write files, which aligns with and adds context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. It also explains that the report is returned as a string and that saving it is the caller's decision, which is useful behavioral guidance for an agent.
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 reasonably concise and front-loaded with the core action. It packs useful details into three sentences, but it has some redundancy: 'it does NOT write a file', 'you decide whether to save it', and 'this tool never modifies your files' all express similar read-only/no-file-write behavior.
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?
The description is complete for a read-only reporting tool of this complexity. It names the input scope, the output format, the report contents, and the file-writing behavior. Since an output schema exists and annotations cover read-only behavior, nothing critical is missing for an agent to decide whether to call this tool.
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?
The input schema already documents the `path` parameter as an absolute path to a .ts file or directory. The description adds context by mentioning .html files and directories, but it does not materially expand the parameter semantics beyond what the schema describes. With 100% schema coverage, a baseline score of 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 identifies what the tool does: it scans .ts and .html files or a directory and returns a Markdown report with specific content (findings, complexity, file order, recipe names, version warnings). It distinguishes the tool from generic utility tools by naming the report contents, though it stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with the sibling analysis tools.
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 implies when to use this tool: when you need a combined migration report as a string rather than a file. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or which sibling tool should be used instead, such as `analyze_migration_complexity` for complexity-only analysis or `verify_migration` for validation afterward.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Returns a verified before/after migration recipe for a single Reactive Forms construct (e.g. "FormControl", "FormBuilder.group", "Validators.required"). An unknown construct returns found:false plus the list of available constructs — it is never an error. Read-only: this tool never modifies your files.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| construct | Yes | Reactive Forms construct to look up, e.g. "FormControl", "FormBuilder.group", "Validators.required". |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| after | No | |
| found | Yes | |
| before | No | |
| caveats | No | |
| construct | Yes | |
| provenance | No | |
| description | No | |
| availableConstructs | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only: this tool never modifies your files.' Beyond that, it adds a valuable behavioral edge case: unknown constructs return found:false plus available constructs and are never an error, which is more informative than standard error expectations. This exceeds the baseline set by the annotations.
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 two sentences with zero waste. The core behavior is front-loaded, followed by the edge case and a read-only guarantee. Every sentence earns its place, and no irrelevant information is included.
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?
This is a simple one-parameter lookup tool with a known input shape and an output schema. The description covers behavior, unknown-input handling, and side-effect safety, so an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly. The output schema handles the return-value details, and the description covers the rest.
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 parameter is already well documented. The description's examples ('FormControl', 'FormBuilder.group', 'Validators.required') mirror the schema's own examples and do not add new semantic depth. The description adds only a mild connection between the parameter and the resulting recipe concept, which keeps this at the baseline of 3.
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 opens with a precise verb+resource: 'Returns a verified before/after migration recipe for a single Reactive Forms construct.' It also gives concrete examples ('FormControl', 'FormBuilder.group', 'Validators.required') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by targeting a single construct lookup rather than scanning, analysis, or reporting. This makes it unambiguous which tool an agent should select.
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 clearly implies the use case: looking up a recipe for a specific Reactive Forms construct. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools, but the examples and single-construct scope make it evident as a lookup tool. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer a sibling like find_form_candidates or verify_migration instead, leaving a small gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Reads code you have ALREADY migrated and reports Signal Forms traps that COMPILE and are still wrong — a missed signal call in a position TypeScript does not check, a deprecated-but-valid v21 rule shape, a pre-release API name, an AbstractControl left in a form() model, Reactive Forms imports left behind. Run it after tsc, not instead of it: anything the compiler already reports is deliberately not repeated here. Read-only. It proves the ABSENCE OF KNOWN DEFECTS, never correctness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Absolute path to an ALREADY-MIGRATED .ts file, or a directory to scan. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| files | Yes | |
| checksRun | Yes | |
| infoCount | Yes | |
| disclaimer | Yes | |
| errorCount | Yes | |
| warningCount | Yes | |
| checksSkipped | Yes | |
| notMigratedFiles | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations, which already mark read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds important behavioral nuances: it only reports defects the compiler misses, it does not re-report compiler errors, and its results 'prove the ABSENCE OF KNOWN DEFECTS, never correctness.' This is exactly the kind of limitation disclosure that helps the agent set expectations.
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 dense but stays efficient: it front-loads the tool's core behavior, lists useful defect categories, states the run order relative to tsc, and closes with an epistemically honest caveat. Every sentence contributes meaningful decision-making information.
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 single-parameter read-only verifier with a 100%-documented schema and an output schema present, the description covers what the tool reads, what defects it finds, where it fits in the workflow, what it explicitly does not do, and its limits. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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?
The input schema covers the only parameter with 100% accuracy, including that the path must point to an already-migrated file or directory. The description reinforces this with 'reads code you have ALREADY migrated,' but it does not need to add parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already supplies.
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 identifies a specific verb+resource: it reads already-migrated code and reports Signal Forms traps that compile but are still wrong. It gives concrete examples and establishes that its scope is intentionally narrower than 'correctness checking,' making it distinguishable from migration-planning and reporting siblings.
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 gives an explicit usage boundary: 'Run it after tsc, not instead of it.' It also states that compiler-reported errors are deliberately excluded, so an agent knows when the tool is and is not the right choice in a migration workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.9.1analyze_migration_complexityfind_form_candidatesget_angular_upgrade_planget_migration_reportget_signalforms_recipeverify_migrationMost tools are clearly distinct in purpose: discovery, complexity analysis, report generation, recipe lookup, upgrade planning, and verification. The only potential overlap is between find_form_candidates, analyze_migration_complexity, and get_migration_report, but their distinct output shape (raw findings vs. summary vs. combined report) keeps them distinguishable.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_*, find_*, analyze_*, verify_*. The verbs and nouns are explicit and predictable, so an agent can infer tool behavior from the name.
Six tools is well-scoped for a migration-assist server. Each tool covers a necessary part of the migration workflow—candidate discovery, recipe lookup, complexity analysis, report generation, upgrade planning, and post-migration verification—without redundancy or bloat.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of the migration assistance: analyzing the existing code, obtaining recipes, generating reports, planning version upgrades, and verifying the migrated result. It lacks a tool that applies the migration automatically, but the server explicitly positions itself as read-only and focuses on verification rather than execution.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Code intelligence platform for AI agents. 20 tools for architecture, security & impact analysis.
Read-only AI coding tools for change verification, release readiness, capacity, and guidance.
Lints + auto-fixes how AI coding agents discover any new product. 24 rules, 6 tools, score 0-100.
AI Agent with Architectural Memory. Impact analysis (free), tests and code from the graph (pro).
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Alvi97/angular-signal-forms-migration-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
