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 communicates that this is a read-only inspection tool (implied by 'inspect' and 'see') and provides the safety rationale ('avoid errors'). However, it doesn't describe what the output looks like, potential error conditions, or performance characteristics.

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 concise with two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second provides crucial usage guidance. No wasted words, and the most important information is front-loaded.

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 single-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description provides excellent purpose clarity and usage guidance. The main gap is the lack of output format description, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema. However, the description compensates well with strong behavioral context about when and why to use the tool.

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%, with the parameter 'objectName' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but the schema already provides complete documentation including examples. This meets the baseline expectation for high schema coverage.

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', 'see') and resources ('global object', 'properties, types, callable functions'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'list_debug_globals' (which lists objects) by focusing on detailed inspection of a single object's internal structure.

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: 'BEFORE calling methods on unfamiliar objects to avoid errors.' This creates a clear usage context and distinguishes it from other inspection tools like 'inspect_component' or 'inspect_at_point' that target different resources.

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