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 what the tool returns (statistics) but does not mention behavioral traits such as whether it requires specific permissions, if it's read-only (implied by 'Get'), how data is sourced (e.g., from a capture session), performance considerations, or error handling. This leaves gaps in understanding the tool's operation and constraints.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core action ('Get statistics') and specifies the resource and details without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence adds value, making it well-structured and concise for quick understanding.

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 complexity is low (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does but lacks details on behavioral aspects like data freshness, scope (e.g., time range), or format of returned statistics. Without annotations or output schema, more context on the return value would be helpful for completeness.

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 does not discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. This aligns with the baseline expectation for tools without parameters, where the description need not compensate for schema gaps.

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 'Get' and the resource 'statistics about captured network requests', with specific details about what statistics are included (counts by method, status code, and domain). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_network_requests' (which likely lists individual requests) and 'search_network' (which likely filters requests) by focusing on aggregated statistics rather than individual records or search functionality.

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 implies usage when aggregated statistics about network requests are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_network_requests' or 'search_network'. There is no guidance on prerequisites (e.g., whether network capturing must be active) or exclusions, leaving the context somewhat open-ended.

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