Flutter Package MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the basic search function without mentioning pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the search results include (e.g., package names, descriptions). This is inadequate for a tool with parameters and no output schema.

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 function. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant information, making it optimally concise while remaining clear.

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 (search with pagination), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of packages with basic info), how results are ordered, or error conditions. For a search tool without structured output documentation, more context is needed.

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 both parameters ('query' and 'page') clearly documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying keyword-based search through 'anahtar kelimeye göre' (by keyword). This meets the baseline for high schema coverage but doesn't enhance understanding.

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: searching Flutter packages by keyword. It specifies the verb ('arar' - searches) and resource ('Flutter paketlerini' - Flutter packages), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_trending_packages' or 'get_package_info', which prevents a perfect 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. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_trending_packages' (for popular packages) or 'get_package_info' (for specific package details), nor does it specify use cases like initial discovery versus detailed lookup. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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