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 underlying technology (uiautomator) and reliability considerations compared to ocr_screenshot, but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like error conditions (what happens if element isn't found), timing considerations, or what constitutes a successful tap. The description adds some context but leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.

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 perfectly sized with two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides valuable usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated immediately. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 UI automation tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides good context about the tool's purpose and when to use alternatives. However, it doesn't explain what happens after tapping (success indicators, return values, or error behavior), which would be helpful given the lack of output schema. The reliability comparison with ocr_screenshot is valuable context that compensates somewhat for other gaps.

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 7 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the three identification approaches (text, content-description, resource-id) which correspond to parameter groups, but provides no additional syntax, format, or usage details. This meets the baseline 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 ('Tap') and target ('an element'), specifies the identification methods ('by its text, content-description, or resource-id'), and mentions the underlying technology ('using uiautomator'). This provides a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from generic 'android_tap' and other UI interaction tools.

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 explicitly provides an alternative tool recommendation ('Consider using ocr_screenshot first') with justification ('it returns ready-to-use tap coordinates... and works more reliably across different apps'). This gives clear guidance on when to prefer an alternative approach, which is exactly what strong usage guidelines should provide.

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