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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the connection to a Flutter debug port, which hints at network interaction and potential dependencies, but fails to describe critical behaviors such as error handling, response format, whether it's read-only or has side effects, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

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 and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated in the first sentence and additional context in the second. Every sentence earns its place by clarifying the tool's function and connection details without redundancy or unnecessary information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 (involving Flutter debugging and network ports), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and port parameter but lacks details on behavioral traits, error handling, or return values. While it's adequate for a simple read operation, the absence of output schema means the description should ideally explain what 'summary information' entails, which it does not, leaving gaps in contextual understanding.

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' documented as optional for customizing the Flutter debug port. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by reiterating the default port (8181) and the optional nature, but doesn't provide additional semantics like valid ranges or usage examples. Given the high 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 states the tool's purpose: 'Get summary information about the currently selected widget in the Flutter app.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('summary information'), and context ('currently selected widget in the Flutter app'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspector_get_selected_widget' or 'inspector_get_children_summary_tree', which reduces the score from 5.

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 usage context by mentioning it connects to the default Flutter debug port (8181) unless specified otherwise, which suggests when to use this tool for debugging Flutter apps. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'inspector_get_selected_widget' or other inspector tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites are stated. This results in an implied usage score.

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