Metro Logs MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the action but fails to describe key behavioral traits: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only or mutating operation (likely mutating as it interacts with the device), what happens if coordinates are invalid, whether it requires specific permissions, or any error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks 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, direct sentence that efficiently conveys the core action without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the key information ('Long press at specific coordinates'), making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence serves a purpose, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 complexity of a device interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure status, error messages), behavioral nuances like coordinate system origin or screen bounds, or how it integrates with sibling tools. For a mutating operation in a testing/automation context, more completeness is needed.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters (x, y, durationMs, deviceId) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond implying coordinate-based input, which is already covered by the schema. This meets the baseline score of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 action ('long press') and target ('at specific coordinates on an Android device/emulator screen'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'android_tap' or 'android_swipe' beyond the 'long press' action, which is why it doesn't reach a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'android_tap' (for quick taps) or 'android_swipe' (for gestures). It lacks context about typical use cases (e.g., opening context menus, dragging elements) or prerequisites (e.g., requiring an active device connection), leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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