Flutter Inspector MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool is a 'helper' and 'for discovering', which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't explicitly state whether it's safe, whether it requires specific permissions, what format the output takes, or any rate limits. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic purpose.

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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides usage context. It's front-loaded with the main purpose and wastes no words on unnecessary details.

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 moderate complexity (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate but minimal context. It covers the basic purpose and usage intent, but lacks details about output format, error conditions, or integration with the broader debugging workflow. For a discovery tool with no output schema, more information about what the returned data looks like would be helpful.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents all three parameters (isRawResponse, isolateId, port). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline 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 tool's purpose: 'List all available extension RPCs in the Flutter app' with the specific verb 'list' and resource 'extension RPCs'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on RPC discovery rather than debugging, profiling, or inspection functions. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with specific sibling tools like 'get_supported_protocols' which might have overlapping functionality.

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 implied usage context by calling it 'a helper tool for discovering available methods', suggesting it should be used for exploration or debugging setup. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_supported_protocols' or other debugging tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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