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 behaviors: auto-enables inspector when coordinates are given, taps at coordinates, returns component hierarchy, and works across React Native versions including Fabric. It lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, but covers essential operational traits.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's functionality and scope. Every sentence earns its place by providing critical information without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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 (conditional behavior based on parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's behavior and compatibility but could benefit from details on return values or error cases. However, it adequately covers the core functionality for an agent to use it correctly.

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 the parameters (x and y as numbers with descriptions). The description adds some semantic context by explaining that if x/y are provided, it auto-taps at that location, but this is largely implied by the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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', 'read') and resources ('React component', 'Element Inspector selection'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'inspect_at_point' or 'inspect_component' by specifying it works with coordinates or current selection and supports all React Native versions including Fabric.

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 on when to use the tool based on whether coordinates are provided (x/y for auto-tap at location, no coordinates for current selection). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools, such as 'inspect_at_point' for similar functionality.

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