get_selected_widgetReturns the widget currently selected in Flutter Inspector via select widget mode, enabling inspection and debugging of that widget. Returns null when no widget is selected.
The widget currently selected in the Flutter Inspector (via 'select widget mode' in the app/DevTools). Returns null if nothing is selected.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.21.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the selection must come from 'select widget mode', and the result is null when nothing is selected.
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 with zero waste. The primary identity ('what is returned') is front-loaded, and the null fallback follows immediately.
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 correctly carries the return-value burden by documenting the null case. It slightly under-specifies the shape of a returned widget (id, node, properties), but for a zero-parameter read tool this is close to complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter semantics are needed or missing.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource ('the widget currently selected') and identifies its source (Flutter Inspector select widget mode), so the agent knows exactly what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling get_widget_tree, though the distinction is inferable from 'selected' vs. tree-wide.
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?
Usage is implied by the 'select widget mode' reference and the null case, telling the agent this only works when the user has an active selection. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_widget_tree.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.