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 the tool retrieves a URL for accessing debug data, implying it's a read-only operation without side effects. However, it lacks details on potential errors, authentication needs, or rate limits, which are important for a tool interacting with a debug server.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place without redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is complete enough for its simple purpose. It explains what the tool does and when to use it, though it could benefit from mentioning the format of the returned URL or any prerequisites. For a low-complexity tool, this is largely adequate.

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 adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and usage, which compensates for the lack of parameters. A baseline of 4 is appropriate as it provides meaningful context beyond the empty schema.

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 ('Get') and resource ('debug HTTP server URL'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on Android/iOS operations, logs, network requests, or other debugging aspects. It explicitly identifies what the tool retrieves without being vague or tautological.

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: 'Use this to find where you can access logs, network requests, and other debug data via HTTP.' This clearly indicates its purpose for locating a debug HTTP endpoint, differentiating it from tools like 'get_logs' or 'get_network_requests' that fetch data directly.

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