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 discloses that this is a 'VM service method' and specifies the default port (8181), adding useful context. However, it does not cover other behavioral traits such as error handling, response format, or whether it's read-only/destructive, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that are front-loaded with the core purpose. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating usage notes).

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides basic context (purpose, port details) but lacks completeness. It does not explain what 'supported protocols' entails, the return format, or error scenarios, which are important for a tool with no structured output documentation.

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 'port' parameter well-documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by reiterating the default port (8181) and the optional nature, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already states. 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.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get supported protocols from a Flutter app.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('supported protocols'), and distinguishes it as a 'VM service method, not a Flutter RPC.' However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_vm_info' or 'get_extension_rpcs', which might have overlapping scopes.

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 mentioning it connects to 'the default Flutter debug port (8181) unless specified otherwise,' which helps in understanding when to use custom ports. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other 'get_' tools in the sibling list) or any prerequisites for operation.

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