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 mentions connecting to a debug port, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this requires specific app states (e.g., debug mode), potential side effects, error handling, or return format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral 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 concise and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first followed by implementation details. Both sentences are relevant, though the second sentence could be integrated more smoothly. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 complexity of interacting with a Flutter debug port and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'information' is returned (e.g., widget properties, hierarchy), error conditions, or dependencies on app state. For a tool with no structured output and behavioral uncertainty, more context is needed.

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%, with the single parameter 'port' fully documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by restating the default port (8181) and the optional nature, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what the schema already covers. With high schema coverage, the 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 information about the currently selected widget in the Flutter app.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('currently selected widget'), and context ('Flutter app'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'inspector_get_selected_summary_widget' or 'inspector_get_details_subtree', which appear to serve similar inspection purposes.

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 some usage context by mentioning the default Flutter debug port (8181) and the optional custom port parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., other inspector_* tools for widget details) or any prerequisites. The context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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