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 trending packages, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, pagination details (beyond the 'page' parameter in the schema), or what 'trending' means (e.g., based on downloads, time frame). This is a significant gap 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: 'Trend olan Flutter paketlerini listeler.' It's front-loaded and wastes no words, clearly stating the tool's purpose. However, it could be slightly improved by adding context or usage hints without losing conciseness, so it doesn't reach a perfect score of 5.

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 tool's complexity (listing trending packages), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'trending' entails, how results are sorted, or what the output format is (e.g., list of package names with details). This leaves gaps for the agent to understand the tool's behavior fully, especially without annotations to compensate.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'page' parameter documented as 'Sayfa numarası (varsayılan: 1)' (Page number, default: 1). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining pagination behavior or range limits. With high schema coverage, the baseline score is 3, as the schema adequately handles parameter documentation.

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: 'Trend olan Flutter paketlerini listeler' (Lists trending Flutter packages). It specifies the verb 'listeler' (lists) and the resource 'Flutter paketlerini' (Flutter packages), making the action and target clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_packages' or 'get_package_info', which could have overlapping functionality, so it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 any context, prerequisites, or exclusions, and doesn't reference sibling tools like 'search_packages' for broader searches or 'get_package_info' for detailed information. This lack of usage instructions leaves the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.

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