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. It describes the tool as a read operation ('Get', 'check') and implies it returns status information, which is adequate. However, it lacks details on potential side effects, error handling, or response format, leaving gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 concise and well-structured with two sentences: the first states the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 annotations, no output schema), the description is reasonably complete for a status-checking tool. However, it could be more comprehensive by detailing the return format or error conditions, which would help an agent better anticipate the output, especially without an 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose and usage. A baseline of 4 is applied since it avoids unnecessary repetition of schema information.

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 ('Get', 'check') and resources ('Metro bundler status', 'build state', 'recent bundling errors'), making it easy to understand what it does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bundle_errors' or 'clear_bundle_errors', which prevents a perfect score.

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 check if there are compilation/bundling errors that prevent the app from loading'), which helps guide usage. However, it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'get_bundle_errors' for error details only.

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