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 mentions the IDB installation requirement, which is useful context about dependencies. However, it lacks details on potential side effects (e.g., simulator state changes), error conditions, or what happens if the simulator is not booted, leaving behavioral traits partially described.

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 two concise sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds a critical prerequisite. It is front-loaded with the main action and efficiently structured, making every sentence earn its place.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and a key prerequisite, but could improve by mentioning expected outcomes (e.g., simulator response) or error handling, especially since there's no output schema to clarify returns.

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 does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'SIRI' or 'APPLE_PAY' buttons do in practice). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter semantics adequately.

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 ('Press a hardware button') and target resource ('on an iOS simulator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ios_tap or ios_key_event that perform different interactions. It precisely identifies the tool's function without being vague or tautological.

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 explicitly states a prerequisite ('Requires IDB to be installed') which provides clear context for when the tool can be used. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like ios_key_event for software-based key presses or other iOS interaction tools, leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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