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. It discloses that this is a read operation (listing apps) and mentions a prerequisite action ('run scan_metro first') for when no apps are connected, adding useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on output format, error handling, or performance characteristics.

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: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. It is front-loaded with the core functionality and efficiently includes necessary context without 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?

Given the tool has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for a simple listing tool. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral context (prerequisite action). However, it could be more complete by specifying the return format or handling of edge cases.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate, and it adds value by explaining the tool's behavior and prerequisites, compensating for the lack of parameter details.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('currently connected React Native apps and their connection status'), making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_metro' by focusing on listing rather than establishing connections.

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?

It explicitly provides when to use this tool ('List currently connected React Native apps') and when to use an alternative ('If no apps are connected, run scan_metro first to establish a connection'), naming the sibling tool 'scan_metro' as the alternative for establishing connections.

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