Metro Logs MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states a read operation ('Get') but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires an active device connection, if it works on emulators vs. physical devices, potential errors, or return format. The description is minimal and misses key operational context.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose with zero redundant words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool and front-loads the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple input schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the return value looks like (e.g., dimensions in pixels), error conditions, or dependencies like device connectivity. For a tool with potential operational nuances, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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 the single parameter 'deviceId' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond implying the tool targets Android devices/emulators, which is already clear from the tool name. With 0 parameters needing semantic clarification, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the schema suffices.

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') and resource ('screen size (resolution) of an Android device/emulator'), distinguishing it from siblings like android_screenshot (captures image) or get_screen_layout (likely returns layout structure). It precisely defines what the tool retrieves without ambiguity.

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 when screen resolution information is needed, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., android_describe_all might include screen size, or get_screen_layout could be related). It lacks any 'when not to use' statements or prerequisite context.

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