Flutter Package 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 retrieving documentation but doesn't specify aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what format the documentation is returned in (e.g., raw text, structured data). This leaves significant 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 a single, efficient sentence in Turkish that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., by front-loading key details more explicitly).

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., the format of documentation information), behavioral traits, or usage context relative to siblings. For a tool with no structured data beyond the input schema, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it effectively.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('package_name' and 'version'), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description doesn't add any additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema, such as examples or constraints, but this is acceptable given the high coverage, resulting in a baseline score.

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 ('getirir' - fetches/retrieves) and the resource ('README ve dokümantasyon bilgilerini' - README and documentation information), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'get_package_info', which might also retrieve documentation-related information, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_package_info' or 'search_packages'. It lacks context about specific scenarios or prerequisites, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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