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 successfully communicates that this is a write/mutation operation ('Type text') and mentions a prerequisite dependency (IDB installation). However, it doesn't describe what happens if no input field is active, whether text is appended or replaces existing content, error conditions, or what the response looks like. The description adds some behavioral context but leaves significant 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 perfectly concise with two sentences that each earn their place: the first states the core functionality, the second provides a critical prerequisite. No wasted words, and the most important information (what the tool does) 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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the basic purpose and a critical prerequisite, but doesn't address behavioral details like error conditions, what constitutes 'active input field', or what happens after typing. Given the complexity of interacting with a simulator and the lack of structured safety/behavior annotations, the description should do more to be complete.

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 both parameters (text and udid). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. According to the scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info 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 ('Type text into the active input field') and target resource ('iOS simulator'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like android_input_text by specifying the iOS platform. It provides a complete verb+resource+platform combination that leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context about when to use this tool ('on an iOS simulator') and includes an important prerequisite ('Requires IDB to be installed'). However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name alternative tools (like android_input_text for Android), though the iOS context strongly implies the distinction.

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