Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
flutter-docs-mcp

flutter-docs-mcp

by KEEPEE
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

health_check

Check if the server is online and report its version, helping agents confirm availability before requesting Flutter, Dart, or pub.dev documentation.

Instructions

Check that the server is up and report its version.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "health_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 implicitly conveys a safe, idempotent read and discloses the return payload (version), which is useful. It does not state whether auth is required, whether it can fail/timeout, or what 'up' means operationally, but for a trivial probe the disclosure is reasonable.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence with zero waste, front-loading the primary action (check server is up) before the secondary outcome (report version).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description steps in to say it reports the version, which is the key return detail. For a zero-param probe with no annotations this is nearly complete; a note on failure mode or the distinction from flutter_status would close the remaining gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%), so there is nothing to document and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals a no-argument call.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: checks server availability and reports its version. The action is unambiguous. However, it offers no differentiation from the similarly-named sibling flutter_status, which an agent could plausibly confuse with a server health probe.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when this should be preferred over flutter_status. Usage is only vaguely implied by the verb 'check'.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools