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 describes what information is returned (headers, body, timing) but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or response format. The description is accurate about the tool's purpose but lacks operational context that would help an agent use it effectively.

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 consists of two focused sentences that efficiently communicate purpose and usage guidance. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides critical workflow context. There's no wasted verbiage or redundant information.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and usage guidance but lacks information about the return format, error handling, or operational constraints. The description is complete enough for basic understanding but would benefit from additional context about what the detailed response looks like.

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 fully documents all three parameters. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no parameter information in the description.

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 full details') and resource ('a specific network request'), explicitly listing the included information (headers, body, timing). It distinguishes from its sibling 'get_network_requests' by specifying this tool is for detailed inspection of individual requests rather than listing them.

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 get_network_requests first to find the request ID'), creating a clear workflow dependency. It distinguishes this tool from its sibling by positioning it as the second step in a two-step process for network request inspection.

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