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. It explains the workflow dependency on ocr_screenshot but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires device connection, what happens if coordinates are invalid, or if there are rate limits. The description adds some context but leaves important behavioral aspects unspecified.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, the second provides crucial workflow guidance. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded appropriately.

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?

For a 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context about the workflow and relationship to ocr_screenshot. However, it doesn't explain what happens after the tap (success/failure indicators) or error conditions, which would be helpful given the lack of output schema.

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 documents all parameters (x, y, deviceId). The description mentions using 'tapX/tapY values' from ocr_screenshot, which reinforces the coordinate parameters but doesn't add significant meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('Tap at specific coordinates') and resource ('Android device/emulator screen'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like android_tap_element (which likely taps UI elements rather than coordinates) and android_long_press (different gesture).

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Use ocr_screenshot first to get tap coordinates, then use this tool with the returned tapX/tapY values.' This clearly indicates when to use this tool versus alternatives like android_tap_element or android_find_element.

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