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 effectively describes key behavioral traits: it's a search operation (implied by 'Find'), mentions efficiency compared to get_screen_layout, and provides guidance on using includeLayout parameter for additional style information. However, it doesn't cover potential limitations like performance impacts with complex patterns or error handling.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: stating the core function, providing usage context, and offering parameter guidance. There's no wasted text, and information is front-loaded with the primary purpose stated first.

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 complexity (6 parameters, regex pattern matching) and lack of output schema, the description provides good contextual completeness. It explains the tool's role in the workflow, efficiency benefits, and key parameter usage. However, without an output schema, it could benefit from more detail about return format expectations.

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 6 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema, only mentioning includeLayout=true to get padding/margin/flex styles. This meets the baseline expectation 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 tool's purpose: 'Find components matching a name pattern.' It specifies the verb ('Find'), resource ('components'), and scope ('matching a name pattern'), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_component_tree and get_screen_layout by explaining its targeted search functionality.

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 usage guidance: 'Use after get_component_tree(structureOnly=true) to find specific components by pattern and get their layout info.' It also states when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'More efficient than get_screen_layout for targeted queries.' This gives clear context for when to choose this tool over siblings.

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