Python MCP Hub

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_project_structure

Retrieve read-only Clean Architecture blueprints for a Flutter project root or feature module, including layout, dependency-injection order, and source references.

Instructions

Retrieve Clean Architecture blueprint and guidelines for Flutter project root or feature module.

Strictly READ-ONLY: Never generates code or touches files in the workspace.
Zero Mock Data: Returns verified blueprints with traceable source references.

Args:
    scope: Either 'root' (top-level layout & boot sequence) or 'module' (feature module).
    feature_name: Name of the feature module in lower_snake_case (required if scope='module').

Returns:
    A dictionary containing blueprint tree, DI order, and source citations.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`scope`	Yes
`feature_name`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.3.1Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and explicitly declares strict read-only behavior, no code generation or workspace file access, and zero mock data with traceable source references. This covers the key side-effect and data-quality concerns for a retrieval 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 first sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure is easy to scan. The Returns section slightly overlaps with the existing output schema, but overall the description is efficient.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema already exists, so return values need not be fully explained, yet the description still summarizes the returned dictionary. It covers purpose, parameter meaning, read-only safety, and data provenance adequately for a two-parameter retrieval tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, with only parameter titles available. The description compensates by defining 'scope' values as root (top-level layout & boot sequence) or module (feature module), and clarifying that feature_name must be lower_snake_case and is required only when scope='module'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('Clean Architecture blueprint and guidelines') with scope for root vs feature module. This is clearly distinguishable from the validator-centric 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explains the scope choice and conditional feature_name requirement, giving clear context for root vs module retrieval. It does not explicitly name when not to use it or point to validator alternatives.

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

Deploy Server