Flutter Analysis Engine (MCP)

by Saad0149

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation4/5
Most tools are clearly distinct by purpose: find_* tools target different content types (examples, tests, widgets, best practices, intended behavior) and analyze_* tools target distinct analysis dimensions (architecture, complexity, documentation, testing, dependencies, performance, accessibility). There is some overlap between find_examples and find_best_practice, and between explain_widget and trace_widget, but descriptions help delineate. The find_widget/explain_widget/trace_widget trio has somewhat blurry boundaries.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming follows a strong verb_noun snake_case pattern throughout (find_*, analyze_*, explain_*, explore_*, search_*, update_*, reindex, trace_widget, repository_status). This is highly consistent. Minor deviations: review_project and repository_status are noun_verb/noun style rather than verb_noun, and analyze_* uses adjectival suffixes (analyze_code_quality) inconsistently across the set.
Tool Count3/5
24 tools is near the heavy end of the appropriate range for a Flutter analysis engine server, which legitimately spans project review, knowledge indexing, code search, and widget explanations. At 24 it's bordering on 'too many' but the scope is broad enough to justify it. The large number of near-parallel analyze_* tools inflates the count.
Completeness4/5
The server covers a comprehensive project analysis workflow: review_project initiates, then eight analyze_* dimensions cover architecture, complexity, docs, testing, dependencies, performance, accessibility, and state management, with follow-up exploration via explain_finding and explore_finding. Knowledge management (find/reindex/repository) is covered. Minor gaps include a missing analyze_security dimension and no tool for viewing project configuration.
Average 3.1/5 across 24 of 24 tools scored. Lowest: 2.4/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- No commit activity data available
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description says nothing about whether this is read-only, what side effects might occur, return formatting, or the key behavioral trait that 'widget tests are preferred' and how that affects results. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant transparency gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single efficient sentence with zero waste. It front-loads the primary purpose (find tests) and adds the widget-preference qualifier concisely. Appropriately sized for a simple search tool, though it could be slightly more informative within the same footprint.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is under-equipped. It doesn't explain the return value shape, pagination, the 'preferred' behavior for widget tests, or how the undocumented 'limit'/'repository' parameters interact. More behavioral detail is needed given the absence of structured metadata.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% — schema already describes 'symbol' and 'widgetTestsOnly', but not 'limit' or 'repository'. The description mentions widget preference (relating to widgetTestsOnly) and the symbol relationship, but adds no meaning for the undocumented 'limit' and 'repository' parameters. This doesn't compensate for the 50% coverage gap, warranting a baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Find tests related to a symbol' with a clear verb+resource relationship. However, it doesn't differentiate from siblings like find_best_practice or search_source clearly, and the qualifier 'widget tests are preferred when available' adds moderate specificity but doesn't clarify what 'preferred' means or what kinds of tests are returned.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_source or find_examples. The description implies test-finding context but gives no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no when-not-to-use guidance, even though sibling tools like analyze_testing could overlap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 doesn't state whether this is a read-only operation, what output format is produced, whether it modifies anything, or any side effects (e.g., triggering reindexing of sources). 'Joins' hints at aggregation but the nature of the operation and its results are unclear.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Very short and front-loaded, but the phrasing is informal and cryptic ('How is this meant to be used?'). While concise, the opening question is idiosyncratic and could confuse rather than clarify. The meaningful content (the joined sources list) is packed into a single clause.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool that aggregates multiple documentation sources, the description is minimal. There's no output schema to explain return values, no annotations for safety, and only partial parameter documentation. An agent cannot confidently predict what this tool returns or when to invoke it over its many siblings given the sparse description.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50% — the topic parameter has a description with examples ('AnimatedContainer' or 'keys'), but the limit parameter has no description. The tool description adds no details about what topic values are valid or how limit controls behavior. With partial coverage, the description doesn't compensate for the undocumented limit parameter.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description "Joins widget tests, samples, migrations/cookbook/guides, and source" conveys it aggregates multiple documentation sources, and the title find_intended_behavior hints its purpose is discovering intended usage. However, it's phrased as a question tagged alongside an unclear phrase ('How is this meant to be used?') rather than a clear declarative statement of the tool's function. The verb 'Joins' is ambiguous about what the operation actually produces or returns.
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?
No explicit when-to-use guidance is given. The description mentions what sources are joined but doesn't say when to prefer this over siblings like find_examples, find_tests, or search_docs. The intended behavior-finding use case is implied by the name rather than stated. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The description reveals only the directories searched (samples and example/) but gives no detail on return format, whether matches are ranked, what constitutes an 'example' (file? code snippet? directory entry?), or whether this is a read-only operation. Minimal behavioral disclosure for a search tool with zero annotation support.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose. No wasted words. However, the sentence is slightly under-specified, but that's more a completeness issue than a conciseness one. Structure is appropriately minimal for a simple tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple search tool with only 2 params and no output schema, the description is somewhat thin. Given 23 siblings covering similar search/find capabilities, the description should clarify what distinguishes examples from tests, best practices, docs, or general source search. Without annotations, no output schema, and minimal param explanation, more description is warranted to make the tool reliably selectable.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% with 2 params. The 'topic' parameter has a schema description ('Topic or symbol to find examples for') providing its meaning. The 'limit' parameter is described only by schema constraints (max 100, exclusive min 0) but no semantic description. The tool description doesn't add parameter details beyond the schema. With 50% coverage, description partially compensates but doesn't fully explain param behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it finds examples related to a topic from samples and example/ directories. It identifies the verb (find) and resource (examples) and adds scope information about directory locations. However, it doesn't distinguish clearly from siblings like search_source or find_best_practice, and the phrase 'samples and example/ directories' is somewhat ambiguous about scope.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 23 siblings including find_tests, find_best_practice, search_source, and search_docs, there's no differentiation offered. The agent is left to guess whether find_examples is for code examples, file examples, or documentation examples, and when to choose it over search_source or find_best_practice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It doesn't describe what 'trace' produces (list of ancestors? descendants? both?), whether it's a read-only operation, or how deep the trace goes by default. The 'from the index' phrase hints at read-only index lookup but adds little.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence with no waste. However, it's under-specified for a tool with this many siblings, so the brevity isn't serving clarity - it's efficient but insufficiently informative.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema description coverage, the description provides minimal context. For a tool that traces inheritance, it doesn't clarify depth semantics, repository scoping, or output format, leaving an agent guessing about behavior and return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (only 'symbol' has a description). The description mentions 'symbols' and 'inheritance' but doesn't explain semantics of 'depth' or 'repository' beyond what the schema types convey. With 67% of parameters undocumented in the schema, the description fails to compensate.
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?
The description states 'Trace widget/class inheritance and related symbols from the index' - a specific verb with resource and clear scope. It distinguishes from siblings like search_source, find_widget, and explain_widget by emphasizing inheritance tracing, though it doesn't explicitly contrast alternatives.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like find_widget, search_source, or explain_widget. No exclusions, prerequisites, or context provided about when inheritance tracing is the appropriate choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that using sessionId avoids rescanning (implying path may trigger a rescan, which is a useful behavioral hint), but it doesn't describe what the tool reads/destroys, whether it mutates anything, performance characteristics, or what the output looks like. The rescanning implication is the only behavioral disclosure, and it's indirect.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short—two clauses in one sentence—with no wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose upfront and adds the usage preference at the end. However, it's arguably under-specified rather than concise, so it earns credit for brevity but loses points for what the brevity omits.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 0% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description must carry substantial weight. For a 3-parameter tool with an alternative-input-mode pattern (sessionId vs path), it under-explains: the relationship between the two modes is only implied via 'prefer sessionId', and limit semantics are absent. The description is adequate as a starting point but far from complete for an agent to use confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It explains the relationship between sessionId and path ('prefer sessionId to avoid rescanning') but gives no semantics for 'limit' or the exact meaning/format of path or sessionId. The description adds only marginal value over the bare schema, which shows parameter names without any explanation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says it provides a 'State management view' from a review_project session or path, which identifies the resource and domain. However, it doesn't distinguish itself from the many sibling analyze_* tools (analyze_architecture, analyze_code_quality, etc.) beyond the specific topic. The phrase 'State management view' is reasonably clear but doesn't specify what the view contains or what operation it performs.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives one useful usage hint: 'Prefer sessionId to avoid rescanning.' This implies sessionId is more efficient than path, providing some when-to-use guidance between the two parameter modes. However, it doesn't explain when to use this vs. sibling analyze tools, when to use path vs. sessionId, or any exclusions/alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention whether this is read-only, what kind of evidence is returned (return format), whether refactoring guidance is included, or any side effects. The description is very sparse.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is one short sentence plus a usage hint. It's efficient and free of waste, but it's also under-specified—brevity is not the same as thoroughness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 5 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no output schema, no annotations, and no mention of return format or behavioral constraints, the description is inadequate. The tool appears to be a complex evidence-retrieval operation (files, symbols, refactor) that needs more explanation of what evidence format to expect and how the multiple optional parameters interact.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It only hints that `sessionId` is preferred (from review_project) but doesn't explain the relationship between `findingCode`, `findingId`, `path`, or `sessionId`, or how `limit` constrains results. With 5 undocumented parameters, this is insufficient.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states "Evidence for one finding (files, symbols, refactor)" which identifies the tool's purpose as retrieving evidence. However, it doesn't distinguish itself clearly from the sibling tool `explain_finding` or `review_project`, and the parenthetical types are vague.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides one useful usage hint: "Prefer sessionId from review_project," which tells the agent to prefer one parameter. However, it doesn't explain when to use this over `explain_finding`, when not to use it, or what the `findingId` vs `findingCode` distinction means for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool 'ranks' results, which is a useful behavior, but doesn't disclose what a typical result looks like, whether it mutates anything (it doesn't appear to), or how ranking weights website vs samples vs docs. The description adds some value beyond the bare name but leaves the safety/behavior profile largely unspecified.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, concise sentence that states the verb (ranks), resources (website, samples, docs), and scope (best-practice topic). No wasted words. It's slightly thin on detail, but communicates the core purpose efficiently.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a retrieval-type tool with 2 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description should explain what a typical result set looks like and how the ranking works. The description is too sparse to fully guide an agent choosing among 23 siblings like find_examples, find_tests, and search_docs, all of which could plausibly return overlapping content.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% with 'topic' documented by the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. The 'limit' parameter is undocumented in both schema and description, yet its semantics (max 50, exclusive minimum 0) are inferable from the schema. Description adds marginal value here, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it ranks website, samples, and docs hits for a best-practice topic, and the sibling find_examples/find_tests help distinguish it. However, 'best-practice topic' is somewhat abstract and doesn't clearly define what this tool returns compared to find_examples or search_docs. It's a distinct purpose but lacks specificity about the ranking granularity or what 'hits' means.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs find_examples, find_tests, or search_docs. The sibling set includes several search/retrieval tools that overlap, and the description gives no differentiation or alternative naming. Implied usage is 'find best practices' but without context for when to choose this over search_docs or find_examples.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 mentions building/refreshing a SQLite index, which hints that it's a write/build operation, but it doesn't disclose side effects like potentially destructive re-extraction, duration, storage impact, or whether existing index data is preserved or replaced. The 'force' parameter behavior is also not explained in the description.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose. It uses zero unnecessary words. It's appropriately concise, though it could arguably be slightly more informative without losing its tight structure.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is an indexing/maintenance tool with no annotations and no output schema. The description doesn't explain what happens after reindexing, how long it takes, whether it's safe to run concurrently with other operations, or what the refresh entails. Given the complexity of a knowledge-index build and the absence of annotation support, more context would be warranted.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, with both parameters (force, repository) documented in the schema. The description adds little beyond the schema: it implies 'repository' can be omitted to reindex all (redundant with the schema's 'omit to reindex all' text) but adds no new detail about the 'force' semantics beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Build or refresh the local SQLite knowledge index for one or all repositories.' It clearly identifies what the tool does (reindexing) and its scope (one or all repos). While it's clear, it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like update_repositories or repository_status, so it loses a point.
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 stated when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusion of alternatives. Siblings like update_repositories, repository_status, find_examples, and analyze_* all exist but the description provides no context for when reindex is the right choice versus when another tool is more appropriate. The 'Build or refresh' wording implies idle-time maintenance but doesn't say that explicitly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It explains that supplying sessionId avoids rescanning (implying path triggers a rescan), which is useful. But it doesn't disclose performance/rate implications, what 'slim findings' means, or how this relates to a prior review_project call—key behavioral details for an analysis tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The two-sentence description is efficient and front-loaded, stating purpose then a usage preference. Little wasted text, though the phrase 'slim findings' is vague jargon.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an analysis tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives an overview of what's analyzed and returned. But it leaves gaps: it doesn't describe output format/structure, required prerequisites (must a review_project session exist?), or how 'high-complexity' is estimated. Adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 3 undocumented parameters (path, limit, sessionId). The description mentions sessionId and path but not what format/units they use, and completely omits the limit parameter. This leaves a meaningful gap in parameter understanding.
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?
The description states the tool provides a 'Complexity view from a review_project session (or path)' with specific outputs (file-size distribution, high-complexity files, slim findings). This is clear and specific. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like analyze_code_quality, though the resource (complexity view) and outputs differentiate it reasonably.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage: analyze complexity after a review_project session. It advises preferring sessionId over path. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over sibling tools like analyze_code_quality or analyze_architecture, nor when NOT to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. The key behavioral revelation—'skips rescanning' when using sessionId and 'triggers analysis' with path—is embedded in the schema parameter descriptions rather than the main description. The main description doesn't disclose side effects, return shape, cost implications of scanning, or any constraints. Given this is an analysis tool that may trigger heavy scanning work, more behavioral transparency about when rescanning occurs is warranted.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single concise sentence that communicates the resource and the key usage preference. It's efficiently front-loaded with the essential decision (prefer sessionId). No wasted words, though it could arguably be slightly longer to differentiate from sibling analyze_* tools without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Among 22 siblings including many analyze_* tools (analyze_code_quality, analyze_complexity, analyze_testing, analyze_dependencies, etc.), this description doesn't clarify what distinguishes 'architecture' analysis from those. No output schema exists to explain what the 'architecture view' returns. The description is adequate for a tool with a clear primary use case but leaves the actual analytical output and distinction from siblings underspecified for an agent operating in a rich tool ecosystem.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67% (path and sessionId documented, limit undocumented). The description adds the key distinction that sessionId bypasses rescanning while path triggers analysis—valuable semantics beyond schema text. However, the 'limit' parameter (max 200) has no description in either schema or tool description, leaving its purpose ambiguous. The description partially compensates for coverage but the limit param remains unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states it provides an 'Architecture view from a review_project session (or path)', which names a clear resource (architecture view) and its source. However, it doesn't specify what the architecture view contains, what analysis it performs, or how it differs from the other 'analyze_*' sibling tools (analyze_code_quality, analyze_complexity, etc.). The purpose is reasonably clear but not well differentiated from siblings.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly says 'Prefer sessionId to avoid rescanning', giving clear usage direction. The parameter schema further clarifies that path 'triggers analysis' only when sessionId is omitted. This gives the agent a clear decision rule: use sessionId when you have a review_project session, fall back to path. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the preference guidance is actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It hints at behavioral traits (slim vs full rescan, session-based short-circuiting) but doesn't disclose what 'slim findings' means precisely, whether this mutates state, what the score is based on, or any side effects. 'Slim findings + score' is telegraphic and leaves important behavioral details unexplained.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single tight sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes a useful qualifier about the slim-versus-full behavior. It's efficient with no fluff, though slightly telegraphic.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a moderately complex analysis tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. Given the sibling ecosystem includes many specialized analyze_* tools, an agent needs clearer guidance on what this covers vs the other analyzers. The description doesn't explain the score semantics, return shape, or how 'slim' differs from the full review_project output, leaving significant gaps for correct invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for 3 undocumented parameters. The description mentions sessionId and path contextually (session-based vs path-based) but says nothing about the 'limit' parameter at all. It adds some meaning for two params but entirely misses the third.
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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource (analyze code quality from a review_project session or path) and clearly states this produces 'Slim findings + score'. It distinguishes itself from a full rescan. However, it doesn't explicitly mention sibling tools like analyze_architecture, analyze_complexity, etc., so some differentiation ambiguity remains.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description conveys that sessionId is the slim path ('not a full rescan when sessionId is set') versus path-based analysis. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like analyze_architecture, analyze_complexity, or analyze_testing, nor does it explain when to use path vs sessionId mode in detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the search is index-based (implied speed) but doesn't state whether results include file paths only or content snippets, how matches are ranked, whether the index might be stale, or what happens if the index isn't built. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single concise sentence that front-loads the action and scope. Efficient and free of waste. Slightly under-specified but the terseness is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry more weight. For a search tool returning potentially unbounded match results, it doesn't state return format, how matches are presented, or behavior when nothing is found. The index-awareness nuance is left underdeveloped — what does indexing buy the user? Given these gaps, completeness is limited for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters ('query', 'limit', 'repository'). The description adds minimal value beyond schema — it doesn't clarify query syntax (regex? plain text? case-sensitivity), how 'repository' is formatted beyond the example, or what 'limit' caps. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema handles the documentation.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Search') plus resource ('filenames and file contents') and scope ('local official Flutter/Dart repositories index-aware'). It conveys an efficient indexed full-text/code search capability. Sibling differentiation is moderate — it's clearly a search tool, distinct from find_examples/find_tests which are more targeted, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage as a general repository search, but it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this over siblings like find_examples, find_tests, search_docs, or find_widget. It mentions 'index-aware' which hints at efficiency but provides no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description doesn't state what side effects occur (network calls, disk writes to repository directories), whether it's destructive to local changes, or what happens if repositories already exist with divergent history. It also doesn't mention auth/permission requirements or how long the operation might take. The description names actions but not their consequences.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the primary action (clone missing repos) followed by secondary actions (pull, reindex). Each clause earns its place and nothing is wasted. Slightly underspecified in terms of behavioral context, but structurally efficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry full weight. With no parameters and no behavioral detail about side effects, network requirements, or operation duration, the description leaves material gaps. For a tool that clones and pulls repositories, the agent would benefit from knowing about local changes preservation, disk/network implications, and failure modes. The description covers the 'what' but not the operational context.
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?
With 0 parameters and 100% schema coverage, the schema has nothing to document. The description communicates the full parameter surface (there are none) implicitly by listing inline options like 'optionally reindex' which appear to be internal behavior rather than parameters. The baseline of 4 for zero-param tools is appropriate here since the description conveys the tool's full scope.
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?
The description clearly states the verb-resource pairing: 'clone missing official Flutter/Dart repositories, pull latest changes, and optionally reindex.' It specifies the actions (clone, pull, reindex) and the target (official Flutter/Dart repositories). It distinguishes adequately from siblings like 'reindex' (which only handles indexing) and 'repository_status' (which checks status rather than updating).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies a maintenance/setup use case but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives. It doesn't explain when 'optionally reindex' should be triggered or when indexing should be skipped. No explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool references.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 reveals the caching/sessionId behavior and the payload distinction between summary and full modes, which is genuinely useful. However, it doesn't disclose what the tool actually returns structurally, how long scanning takes, whether there are side effects, or what the 'health summary' contains — leaving significant behavioral ambiguity for an analysis tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and front-loaded, with the key action and workflow instruction in the first sentence. The second sentence is a useful conditional. Every sentence earns its place, though the term 'Analyze once' could arguably benefit from a more explicit rewrite.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a moderately complex tool (3 params) with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry more weight. It explains the workflow and detail modes but omits what 'executive health summary' actually contains, what the sessionId is for beyond follow-up tools, and what counts as a valid project. Given the ambiguity of 'health' and the lack of disclosed output structure, more completeness would help agents invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67%, so two of three parameters (detail, and path partially) are documented in the schema. The description adds context about the detail parameter's behavior (summary vs. full payload distinction) but doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter at all, which appears in the schema only as a bare max-300 integer with no description in the schema itself. With 67% coverage, the description partially compensates but leaves the 'limit' semantics unclear.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description indicates the tool performs an analysis of a project, but uses opaque phrasing like 'executive health summary' without clarifying what 'health' means in this context. The name 'review_project' and the input schema's reference to 'Flutter/Dart project root' partially clarify the resource, but the description doesn't clearly distinguish this from sibling analysis tools like analyze_code_quality, analyze_architecture, or analyze_performance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear guidance on passing sessionId to follow-up tools to avoid rescanning, which is a useful workflow instruction. It also provides conditional guidance on when to use detail=full ('only when you need the entire report'). However, it doesn't explicitly contrast against the many sibling analysis tools or say when NOT to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the tool performs a 'Performance view' which implies a read-only analysis, but doesn't clarify whether it mutates state, whether rescanning is expensive, what 'avoid rescanning' means operationally, or what the return format looks like. The mention of 'avoid rescanning' hints at side effects but is vague about performance impacts or prerequisites.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences and gets to the point efficiently. The first sentence states what the tool does and what it returns; the second gives parameter guidance. No wasted words, though it could be considered slightly under-specified given the absence of annotations.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage, the description carries substantial burden. It does identify the analysis categories (method sizes, setState issues, animation leaks) and parameter preference (sessionId over path), which is helpful. However, for a 3-parameter tool with no other structured metadata, it leaves gaps around the limit parameter semantics, expected output shape, and how findings map to an actionable result.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning to the parameters. It does explain that sessionId and path are alternative inputs and recommends sessionId to avoid rescanning, which adds real semantic value. However, it provides no information about the 'limit' parameter (likely a cap on results), and doesn't describe how sessionId vs path interact or what the trade-offs are beyond 'avoid rescanning'.
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?
The description states the tool performs a performance view from a review_project session or path, specifically listing build method sizes, setState issues, and animation controller leaks. It has a specific verb (analyze) and resource (performance), but among the many sibling 'analyze_*' tools (complexity, documentation, testing, dependencies, accessibility), it does not clearly differentiate itself beyond naming the performance domain, which is implied by the tool name itself.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear usage context: it works on a review_project session or path, and explicitly recommends preferring sessionId 'to avoid rescanning'. This gives the agent actionable guidance on the better parameter choice. However, it doesn't explicitly say when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_code_quality or analyze_complexity, or how it differs from those sibling analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of disclosure. It makes clear this is a read-only explanatory operation scoped to the local index, which implies no mutation. However, it doesn't state what happens when a widget is not found in the index, whether reindexing is a prerequisite, or what the response structure looks like.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence, zero waste. The parenthetical list of explanation dimensions adds value without bloat. It is appropriately brief, though it could be marginally more informative without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a seemingly simple read-only explain tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It doesn't mention the return format (text? structured?), behavior for unknown widgets, whether the 'repository' parameter is needed, or prerequisites like index freshness. Given the low complexity, this is minimally viable but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%. The required 'name' parameter is described as 'Widget class name' in the schema, and the description reinforces this by specifying the widget is looked up in the local index. However, the 'repository' parameter has NO schema description and the tool description doesn't clarify its meaning, purpose, or whether it's optional scoping.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('a widget from the local index') with parenthetical detail on dimensions (declaration, inheritance, documentation). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like find_widget (finding) and trace_widget (tracing inheritance/usage), though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'from the local index' implies the tool only works on widgets that exist locally and is not used for external searches. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance, nor naming of alternatives. The context of 'local index' vs. live-source tools like search_source is implied but not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral disclosure burden. The description discloses the dual-mode lookup strategy (index-then-fallback), which is useful behavioral context, but doesn't mention performance characteristics, whether the fallback search could be slow over large codebases, or what happens if the widget is not found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, efficient sentence that conveys the verb, resource, and strategy. No wasted words; information is front-loaded. Could potentially add a sentence on usage guidance but remains appropriately compact.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description is the primary documentation. It explains the lookup strategy but leaves gaps: what does 'limit' limit, what does the result look like given no output schema, and when should the agent choose filesystem search vs index. Adequate but not complete for a tool of this complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67%: 'name' and 'repository' have descriptions, but 'limit' has only type constraints (maximum 100, exclusiveMinimum 0) with no semantic explanation of what it limits (widget matches? search depth?). The description adds the strategy context but does not clarify the 'limit' semantics or the format/behavior of 'repository' beyond the schema.
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?
Uses a specific verb 'Locate' with a clear resource ('Flutter widget by name') and describes two search strategies (SQLite index vs filesystem). It distinguishes reasonableness from sibling tools like find_examples/find_tests which target different resources. However, it does not explicitly contrast against siblings that might overlap, like search_source.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Mentions that it uses SQLite index 'when available, else filesystem search,' implying when to use and providing fallback context, but gives no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool versus alternatives like search_source or trace_widget. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states this is a read-only search operation over indexed docs, which is transparent about its non-destructive nature. However, it doesn't disclose search semantics (exact vs fuzzy, ranking, what happens with no matches) or mention indexing requirements.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, tight sentence that names the resource type and scope. No wasted words. It's slightly terse but effective for a search tool. Could benefit from a brief note on repository scoping, but overall well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a search tool with 4 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It doesn't explain what result format to expect, how repository scoping works, or how docKind interacts with the query. The two unnamed params (limit, repository) are undocumented in both schema and description, creating a gap.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50% — query and docKind have descriptions, but limit and repository have none. The description doesn't add parameter context beyond 'query' being the search text. With moderate coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate, though repository (a scoping param) is left unexplained in both schema and description.
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?
Clear verb+resource: 'Search indexed documentation' with specific doc types listed (guides, cookbook, migrations, CHANGELOGs). Distinguishes from search_source (code search) and find_examples/find_tests, though doesn't explicitly name them. The purpose is clearly stated and distinct from sibling tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for searching docs rather than source code, which implicitly differentiates from search_source. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this over find_examples, find_best_practice, or the analyze_* doc tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the behavior of rescanning (and how to avoid it via sessionId), which is meaningful operational context. However, it doesn't clarify mutation potential, whether it writes data, rate/latency implications of rescanning, or whether sessionId must come from a prior review_project call.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, and the operational tip is placed second. Zero wasted words for the information conveyed.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 3 params, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description leaves gaps: path semantics, limit meaning, output structure/format are all unclear. The sessionId optimization is helpful but doesn't cover the full tool contract for a reasonably simple tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the 3 undocumented parameters. It mentions sessionId's role (avoiding rescan) but says nothing about path semantics or the limit parameter (its type, default behavior, or purpose as a cap on returned items). Two of three parameters are unaddressed in the description.
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?
The description states a clear verb-resource pair ('Testing coverage view from a review_project session') and lists the outputs (test/lib ratios, test type counts, untested features). It distinguishes somewhat from siblings by being testing-specific, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other analysis tools. The term 'coverage view' is reasonably specific but 'view' leans abstract.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends preferring sessionId 'to avoid rescanning', which addresses when-to-use and the cost of the alternative. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use path vs sessionId, when not to use this tool, or name alternatives from the sibling set like find_tests or analyze_complexity for related but distinct needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description tells the agent to prefer sessionId but doesn't disclose what happens when findingCode is missing, whether it requires prior review_project context, or what the explanation format/return looks like. It adds 'mentor-style' framing but no operational behavior details.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short sentence plus a preference directive. Efficient and front-loaded with the core purpose. Could arguably be slightly more informative about behavior, but as written it's appropriately brief with no wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 4-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It establishes parameter priority but doesn't clarify when a findingCode is required, what happens without a sessionId, or what the mentor-style explanation entails. Given the low complexity (single finding, simple tool), this is minimally sufficient but with room to add behavioral context.
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?
Schema coverage is 75%, and the description adds meaning by establishing the preference hierarchy: sessionId is preferred over path. It contextualizes sessionId as coming from review_project and path as a rescans fallback, which goes beyond the schema descriptions. findingCode and findingId benefit from this context.
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?
'Mentor-style explanation for one finding' clearly states a specific verb (explain) and resource (one finding). It distinguishes from siblings like explore_finding and explain_widget by specifying 'one finding' and mentor-style tone, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from the similar explore_finding sibling.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'Prefer sessionId from review_project' gives clear usage context for when/how to invoke, and the schema distinguishes sessionId as preferred over the path fallback. It notes path is a fallback for rescans, which orients the agent. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or when NOT to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does declare the tool reports existence/branch/commit/last pull/path, giving the agent a sense of its read-only nature. However, it doesn't state whether the status check performs network calls, requires auth, or what 'supported' means in terms of which repos qualify. The 'supported repositories' caveat is useful but underspecified.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then enumerates the specific data returned. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple status-reporting tool with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description is reasonably complete for what the tool does, but given the absence of annotations and output schema, it could add more context about what 'supported' repositories means, whether interactions with repositories require local presence, or how 'last pull time' is determined. For a read-only status tool, it's adequate but has room to specify edge-case behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the 'repository' parameter is already documented with a clear example ('flutter/flutter'). The description adds 'optional' context implicitly via zero required parameters. The schema handles the parameter semantics adequately, and the description adds minimal additional meaning beyond what the schema already states.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'Report' and the resource (repositories), and lists the specific data points returned: existence, branch, commit, last pull time, and path. This is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like update_repositories. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools for differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is a read/status reporting tool, which is contrasted implicitly with update_repositories among siblings. The 'supported repositories' phrasing suggests there may be an unsupported set, which is useful context. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like search_source or reindex.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 of behavioral disclosure. It reveals performance implications (rescanning avoidance) and hints at output scope, but doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, whether it requires an existing session, what happens with invalid paths, or the cost/limits of analysis beyond the limit parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences covering purpose, output scope, and usage preference. Efficient and to the point with no filler. Could potentially add a sentence about limit semantics but overall achieves maximum signal per word.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 3 optional params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is reasonably informative but leaves gaps. It doesn't explain the return format (counts as numbers? structured objects?), the relationship between sessionId and path (either-or vs both), or the meaning/effect of limit. The rescanning note is valuable but incomplete guidance for a tool with ambiguous alternatives.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains sessionId vs path tradeoff (rescanning avoidance), which adds meaning to both. However, the 'limit' parameter is not explained at all in the description, and the interaction between sessionId and path (mutually exclusive? both optional?) is unclear.
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?
The description clearly states the tool returns accessibility analysis data from a review_project session or path, listing specific output types (semantics widget counts, tooltip usage, missing semantic labels). It distinguishes from siblings like analyze_code_quality and analyze_performance by focusing on accessibility, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description advises 'Prefer sessionId to avoid rescanning,' which gives clear practical guidance on parameter choice. However, it doesn't state when to use accessibility analysis vs other analyze_* tools, nor when sessionId isn't available and path should be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden, and it does disclose the operation is read-only (a 'view') and returns specific finding types. It notes the detail modes (slim vs full) affect output verbosity. However, it doesn't disclose limits, performance implications of scanning vs session reuse, or what happens with a stale/invalid sessionId.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences and reasonably efficient. The opening sentence conveys purpose, the second teaches the detail parameter, and the third gives the strategic usage tip. Minor redundancy in phrase 'Dependency health view' and no wasted words overall.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a moderately complex analysis tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides the core purpose, a usage preference (sessionId over path), and output control (detail). However, it lacks information about return structure, defaults for limit, and error/edge-case behavior—relevant gaps given no output schema or annotation support exists. It's a solid baseline but not a complete specification.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all four parameters. It does address sessionId preference and detail=full semantics, but says nothing about the 'path' parameter format beyond implying it's a valid alternative input, and doesn't explain the 'limit' parameter's behavior or defaults. Roughly half of the params get meaningful context.
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?
The description states the tool returns 'layer violations, circular cycles, and slim findings' from a review_project session or path. It clearly distinguishes its dependency-analysis focus from siblings like analyze_code_quality, analyze_architecture, and review_project. However, 'Dependency health view' is somewhat generic, and the relationship to analyze_architecture specifically is not clarified.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines5/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly advises preferring sessionId over path ('Prefer sessionId to avoid rescanning'), which tells the agent how to select the input parameter for efficiency. It also explains how to get full arrays via 'detail=full'. This is concrete, actionable usage guidance that distinguishes when to use this tool and how to invoke it effectively.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
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 behavioral burden. It does disclose that using path means rescanning occurs (implying cost), and mentions sessionId to avoid rescanning, which is useful. However, it doesn't describe return format, performance cost, or what 'findings' means precisely. For a read-only analysis tool without annotations, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two sentences, zero filler. Front-loaded with the tool's purpose and the key usage tip about sessionId. Every clause earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Three parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and 23 siblings. The description conveys the core purpose and the sessionId-vs-path tradeoff but leaves gaps: what does 'findings' mean, what format do results come in, what does limit control, and what happens if neither sessionId nor path is provided. Given the complexity (a documentation coverage analysis tool), more detail would help.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so baseline is 3 and the description should compensate, but it doesn't. The description mentions sessionId and path but doesn't explain the limit parameter at all. It implies sessionId and path are mutually exclusive inputs but doesn't spell this out. Marginal value added over the schema.
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?
The description clearly states what it does: returns widget/class doc ratios, README presence, and findings from a review_project session or path. The verb 'analyze' plus the specific resource (documentation coverage) is reasonably specific. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like analyze_code_quality or analyze_architecture, but the 'documentation coverage view' frame is clear enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description gives clear contextual guidance: 'Prefer sessionId to avoid rescanning.' This establishes when to use sessionId vs path. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives, but with 23 siblings, the documentation-coverage-specific scope implicitly separates it from code quality, testing, complexity, and architecture analysis tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Flutter_MCP_Knowledge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Saad0149/Flutter_MCP_Knowledge/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Saad0149/Flutter_MCP_Knowledge)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![Flutter_MCP_Knowledge MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Saad0149/Flutter_MCP_Knowledge/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/Saad0149/Flutter_MCP_Knowledge)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Saad0149/Flutter_MCP_Knowledge'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server