Metro Logs MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns image data, but doesn't describe important behavioral aspects: whether this requires device permissions, if it interrupts device operation, potential side effects, error conditions, or how the image data is formatted. The description is minimal and misses key operational context needed for safe invocation.

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 appropriately concise with two clear sentences. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second explains the return value. No wasted words, though it could be slightly more structured by separating functional description from behavioral context.

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 this is a device interaction tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address important contextual aspects: permission requirements, error handling, side effects on the device, image format details, or how the returned data should be handled. For a tool that interacts with physical/virtual devices, more operational context 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 already fully documents both parameters (outputPath and deviceId). The description doesn't add any parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema - it doesn't explain parameter interactions, default behaviors beyond what's in schema descriptions, or usage examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate when schema does all the parameter documentation work.

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 ('Take a screenshot') and target resource ('from an Android device/emulator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ios_screenshot (for iOS) and ocr_screenshot (which performs OCR). It explicitly mentions the return value ('Returns the image data that can be displayed'), making 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 when needing a screenshot from Android devices, but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like ios_screenshot or ocr_screenshot. It mentions the deviceId parameter can come from list_android_devices, providing some contextual guidance, but lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or comparison with sibling tools.

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