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 states the tool lists versions but doesn't describe return format (e.g., list structure, pagination), error handling, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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: 'Paketin tüm sürümlerini listeler.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with zero wasted words. This is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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., version list format, metadata), behavioral traits like error cases, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with no structured output documentation, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 description doesn't add meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'package_name' (described as 'Flutter paket adı'). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3. The description doesn't elaborate on parameter usage or constraints, so it meets but doesn't exceed the minimum.

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: 'Paketin tüm sürümlerini listeler' (Lists all versions of a package). It specifies the verb 'listeler' (lists) and resource 'paketin tüm sürümlerini' (all versions of a package), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_package_info' or 'get_package_documentation', which might also provide version-related information.

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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_package_info' (which might include version data) or 'search_packages' (for broader queries), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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