Metro Logs MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return data (text, content-description, etc.), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential errors (e.g., if coordinates are out of bounds), performance implications, or whether this requires specific device states (e.g., unlocked screen). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return value details. Every word earns its place—no redundancy or fluff. It efficiently communicates essential information without waste, making it easy for an AI agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and return values well, but lacks details on error handling, performance, or device prerequisites. Without annotations or an output schema, more behavioral context would improve completeness, but it's adequate for basic usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for x, y, and deviceId parameters in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as coordinate system details (e.g., origin point) or deviceId usage examples. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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 specific action ('Get UI element info at specific coordinates'), the resource ('on an Android device'), and distinguishes it from siblings like android_describe_all (which describes all elements) and android_find_element (which finds elements by properties rather than coordinates). The verb 'Get' combined with the coordinate-based approach makes the purpose unambiguous.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'at specific coordinates on an Android device,' which suggests this tool is for inspecting UI elements at precise screen locations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like android_describe_all (for all elements) or android_find_element (for searching by properties), nor does it mention prerequisites like device connectivity. The guidance is clear but lacks explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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