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 the tool's behavior by explaining the summary mode functionality and providing practical tips about token management and output formats. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like connection requirements, performance implications, or error conditions.

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 structured with two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides actionable usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the most important guidance immediately following the purpose statement.

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?

For a 7-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by providing workflow guidance and practical tips. However, it could be more complete by mentioning what the tool returns (log format/structure) or any prerequisites (requires connected app). The absence of output schema means the description should ideally cover return values more explicitly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds some value by explaining the strategic use of 'summary=true' and providing context about when to use certain parameter combinations, but doesn't add significant semantic information beyond what's already documented in the comprehensive parameter descriptions.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('console logs from connected React Native app'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'search_logs' or 'clear_logs'. It provides a complete functional statement that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 usage guidance with the tip to 'Use summary=true first for a quick overview... then fetch specific logs as needed.' This gives clear direction on when to use this tool and how to sequence operations, addressing the common workflow of first getting an overview before detailed inspection.

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