get_exceptionsFetches Flutter framework errors and unhandled VM exceptions, including stack traces, error summaries, and offending widgets, to aid debugging.
Flutter framework errors and unhandled VM exceptions, most recent first. Each includes the error summary, offending widget, library, and a reconstructed stack trace (data.stackTrace) when available.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.21.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral value beyond that: result ordering (most recent first) and the specific content of each entry, including the data.stackTrace path where a stack trace may be absent.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads scope and ordering, the second enumerates returned fields. No filler, though the second sentence packs several clauses together.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields and the optional stack trace, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still missing is any mention of the limit parameter's effect or whether results are truncated, which would matter for a list-returning tool.
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?
There is one parameter (limit, default 20, max 200) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it or what capping the list does. The name and bounds are largely self-explanatory, so this is adequate but adds no meaning beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific resource (Flutter framework errors and unhandled VM exceptions) and ordering (most recent first), which lets an agent distinguish it from generic log tools. It does not name a sibling such as get_logs to sharpen the boundary, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The scope wording ('framework errors and unhandled VM exceptions') implies when this tool is the right one, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named among the many siblings (get_logs, runtime_health, diagnose_runtime). Usage is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.