Skip to main content
Glama
stephangopaul

MTDevKit

by stephangopaul
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
JavaScript

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: create a new project, list existing projects, and get project details. No overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case: create_flutter_project, list_flutter_projects, get_project_info. Predictable and clear.

    Tool Count5/5

    Three tools is an appropriate scope for a server focused on Flutter project scaffolding and inspection. Each tool earns its place without unnecessary bloat.

    Completeness4/5

    The tools cover core creation and read operations (list, info). Missing update or delete tools, but this is reasonable for a scaffolding-focused server; the create tool handles extensive setup.

  • Average 3.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • 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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only adds minimal behavioral context beyond the tool name. It implies a read operation but does not disclose prerequisites (e.g., project must exist), side effects, or limitations. More detail on behavior is expected.

    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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the primary action and includes specific examples. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

    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 basic get-info tool with no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and gives examples of what details are retrieved. However, it omits return format, error scenarios, and any potential prerequisites, leaving some gaps in completeness.

    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%—the parameter 'path' is fully described in the schema. The description adds context about the project type (Flutter) and what details are retrieved, which slightly enriches understanding of the parameter's purpose. However, it does not add specific parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose: to get details about an existing Flutter project, listing examples like pubspec, flavors, and config files. This distinguishes it from sibling tools (create_flutter_project and list_flutter_projects) by focusing on retrieving information on a single project.

    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 is provided on when to use this tool versus the siblings. The description does not include conditions, when-not-to-use, or alternatives. While sibling names offer some context, the description itself lacks usage instructions.

    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 exist, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the detection method (looking for pubspec.yaml) but does not clarify recursion depth, error handling, performance, or whether it is read-only.

    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, front-loaded sentence. It is efficient but could be more precise (e.g., 'Scans the given directory for pubspec.yaml files and returns matching project paths').

    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?

    Given the simple nature of the tool (one param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers basic behavior. However, it omits important details like whether subdirectories are scanned recursively and what the output format looks like.

    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?

    The schema already fully describes the single 'dir' parameter, including default behavior (current working directory). The description adds no extra parameter-specific details beyond the operation context.

    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?

    The description clearly states the tool lists Flutter projects by detecting pubspec.yaml files in a directory. It distinguishes effectively from siblings like create_flutter_project and get_project_info by focusing on listing existing projects.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings or alternatives. It does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or exclusion criteria.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Discloses immediate execution (no confirmation), automatic fvm detection, absolute path return, and 11-step process. No annotations provided, so description bears full burden.

    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?

    Well-structured with numbered steps. Some repetition of process but overall efficient given complexity. Could be slightly shorter.

    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?

    Covers full 11-step process, return value, and conditional behavior (fvm). No output schema, but description is self-contained and complete.

    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 covers 100% of parameters. Description adds minimal value beyond schema, e.g., mentions dry_run for preview but no new semantic detail. Baseline 3.

    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?

    Clearly states it scaffolds a Flutter project from a custom clean-architecture template. Distinguishes from siblings list_flutter_projects and get_project_info.

    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?

    Suggests using dry_run=true first to preview. Provides context on when to use but lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives beyond dry_run.

    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

MTDevKit MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

MTDevKit MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

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/stephangopaul/MTDevKit'

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