Metro Logs MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Clear' implies a destructive write operation that likely removes error data, but the description doesn't specify if this requires specific permissions, is irreversible, affects system state, or has side effects (e.g., resetting counters). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 with no wasted words—'Clear the bundle error buffer' directly conveys the core action and target. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly 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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete for its basic function. However, as a mutation tool with potential side effects, it lacks details on behavioral traits (e.g., what 'clear' entails operationally) and usage context, which could hinder agent effectiveness in complex scenarios.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly avoids mentioning any. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, where minimal description is acceptable.

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 'Clear the bundle error buffer' clearly states the action (clear) and the resource (bundle error buffer), making the purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes from siblings like 'clear_logs' and 'clear_network' by specifying the target resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The purpose is specific but lacks explicit sibling differentiation, warranting a 4.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., after detecting errors with 'get_bundle_errors'), exclusions, or contextual cues. Without any usage instructions, the agent must infer context from tool names alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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