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 describes what data is returned (URL, method, status, timing) and suggests a usage tip, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this is a moderate level of behavioral disclosure.

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?

Two sentences with zero waste: the first states the purpose and data fields, the second provides a practical tip. It's front-loaded with essential information and efficiently structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and usage, but lacks details on return format or error cases. It's complete enough for basic use but could benefit from more behavioral context for a tool with 6 parameters.

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 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'summary=true' in the tip, but doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('captured network requests from connected React Native app'), specifying what data is shown (URL, method, status, timing). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_network_stats' (statistics) and 'search_network' (search-focused) by emphasizing retrieval of captured requests with specific fields.

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?

It provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'Use summary=true first for stats overview (counts by method, status, domain), then fetch specific requests as needed.' This offers a clear workflow and distinguishes it from using 'get_network_stats' for summary-only purposes.

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