Flutter Inspector MCP Server

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 tool performs a 'dump' operation, implying a read-only diagnostic action, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific app states, if it's safe to call repeatedly, what format the output takes, or potential side effects. For a debugging tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 extremely concise—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function and RPC endpoint. It's front-loaded with the core action and wastes no words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by providing essential 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?

Given the tool's complexity (a debugging RPC with one optional parameter) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the tool's purpose and RPC target, but lacks details on usage context, behavioral expectations, or output format. For a debugging tool in a set of similar siblings, it should provide more guidance to be fully complete.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'port' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 action ('Dump the focus tree') and identifies it as an RPC call to a specific Flutter debugging function ('ext.flutter.debugDumpFocusTree'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'debug_dump_layer_tree' or 'debug_dump_render_tree' by specifying the focus tree, but doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific and actionable.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., a running Flutter app), typical debugging scenarios, or how it differs from other debug dump tools in the sibling list. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and context alone.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.