Flutter MCP

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 effectively describes what the tool does (fetches package info including README), mentions a default value and minimum for the 'tokens' parameter, and specifies the return format. However, it doesn't cover potential error conditions, rate limits, or authentication requirements, which would be helpful for a tool accessing external resources.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, immediately follows with the critical deprecation notice, then provides clear parameter documentation with examples, and ends with return value information. Every sentence serves a distinct purpose with zero wasted content.

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 that this is a deprecated tool with no annotations but with an output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's purpose, provides explicit deprecation guidance with alternatives, documents all parameters with examples, and describes the return format. The main gap is lack of behavioral details like error handling or rate limits, but the deprecation notice reduces the need for comprehensive documentation.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. It successfully explains all three parameters: 'package_name' (with examples like 'provider', 'bloc'), 'version' (optional with examples), and 'tokens' (default and minimum values). This adds significant value beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more context about what 'tokens' actually controls in the response.

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: 'Get package information from pub.dev including README content.' This specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('package information from pub.dev'), and key feature ('including README content'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from its sibling 'flutter_docs' by focusing specifically on pub.dev packages rather than general Flutter documentation.

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 explicit usage guidance with a clear deprecation notice: '**DEPRECATED**: This tool is deprecated. Please use flutter_docs() instead with the "pub:" prefix (e.g., flutter_docs("pub:provider")).' This tells users exactly when NOT to use this tool and provides a specific alternative with usage examples, which is ideal for tool selection.

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