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 does this well by describing the fallback behavior (screenshot+OCR when no errors captured), which is a key behavioral trait not evident from the schema. It also implies this is a read operation (retrieving errors) rather than a mutation. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens when Metro isn't running.

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 at two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by important behavioral context about the fallback mechanism. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words 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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (retrieval with conditional fallback), no annotations, and no output schema, the description does well by explaining both the primary retrieval behavior and the fallback mechanism. However, it doesn't describe the return format (what the errors look like) or error conditions, which would be helpful since there's no output schema.

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 three parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by mentioning the screenshot fallback context for the 'platform' and 'deviceId' parameters, but doesn't provide additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already state.

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 with specific verbs ('retrieve captured Metro bundling/compilation errors') and resources ('errors during bundle build process'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'clear_bundle_errors' (which clears rather than retrieves) and 'get_bundle_status' (which checks status rather than errors).

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to retrieve bundling errors that prevent app loading. It implicitly distinguishes from tools like 'get_logs' or 'search_logs' by focusing specifically on Metro bundling errors. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives.

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