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 RPC nature and default port, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only or mutation operation (though 'Set' implies mutation), what happens after selection is set, potential side effects on the Flutter app, error conditions, or authentication requirements. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 concise with two sentences that efficiently cover the RPC call and port information. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, it could potentially benefit from slightly more context given the lack of annotations.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, error handling, side effects, or prerequisites. Given the complexity of interacting with a Flutter debug session and the lack of structured metadata, the description should provide more operational context.

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 both parameters (selectionId and port). The description adds marginal value by reinforcing the default port context, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete.

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 ('Set the selected widget') and resource ('by ID'), specifying it's an RPC call to Flutter inspector. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on selection setting rather than getting information or other debug functions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all inspector_* siblings that might also manipulate selection.

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 minimal usage context by mentioning the default Flutter debug port (8181) and that it can be overridden. However, it offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspector_get_selected_widget or other inspector_* tools, nor does it mention prerequisites like requiring an active Flutter debug session.

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