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 behavioral traits: it works like React Native's Element Inspector, mentions API availability issues ('getInspectorDataForViewAtPoint' may not be available in newer versions), and outlines fallback strategies. However, it doesn't specify error handling, performance implications, or output format details, leaving some gaps.

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 the core purpose stated first. It uses two sentences efficiently, with the second providing crucial context and alternatives. While concise, the second sentence is slightly dense but still earns its place by adding necessary guidance.

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 (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is mostly complete. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, and behavioral context well. However, it lacks details on output format or error handling, which would be helpful since there's no output schema, leaving a minor gap in 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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any additional meaning or context about the parameters beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain coordinate systems further or usage of includeProps/includeFrame). The baseline score of 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 ('inspect') and resources ('React component'), and distinguishes it from siblings by mentioning alternatives like 'ios_describe_point/android_describe_point' and 'find_components'. It explicitly identifies what it inspects and how it differs from other tools.

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 (for React component inspection) and when not to use it (if unavailable in newer React Native versions with Fabric), naming specific alternatives ('ios_describe_point/android_describe_point' then 'find_components'). This covers both usage context and exclusions clearly.

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