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 states that the tool 'establishes the WebSocket connection needed for debugging tools,' which explains the outcome and purpose. However, it doesn't cover potential failure modes, authentication requirements, timeout behavior, or what happens if the connection fails—leaving gaps for a mutation tool (connection establishment).

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 two sentences with zero waste—front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage guidance. Every word contributes value, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 moderate complexity (establishing a connection), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by covering purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral outcome. However, it lacks details on error handling or connection state management, which would be helpful for a tool that mutates system state (establishes connections).

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'port' parameter fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., no details about valid port ranges or connection protocols). This meets the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 ('Connect to a Metro server') and resource ('on a specific port'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'scan_metro' which auto-detects ports. It explicitly mentions establishing a WebSocket connection for debugging tools, providing a complete purpose statement.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('when you know the exact port') and when to use an alternative ('otherwise use scan_metro which auto-detects'). This directly addresses the comparison with the sibling tool, offering clear decision criteria.

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