Metro Logs MCP

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a prerequisite (IDB installation) but lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this is a read/write operation, error handling, performance implications, or what happens if the simulator is not booted. The description is insufficient for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence and adds a crucial prerequisite in the second. Both sentences earn their place with no wasted words, making it appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 complexity (mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error conditions, return values, and how it interacts with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand its full context.

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 (keycode, duration, udid). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples of keycodes or typical duration values, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 ('Send a key event'), target resource ('iOS simulator'), and mechanism ('by keycode'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ios_key_sequence (which sends sequences) and android_key_event (which targets Android).

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 context for when to use this tool ('Requires IDB to be installed') and implies usage for iOS simulators, but does not specify when to choose it over alternatives like ios_key_sequence or when not to use it (e.g., for physical devices).

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