Metro Logs MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions a prerequisite (IDB installation) which is useful context, but fails to describe what the tool actually does behaviorally—e.g., whether it simulates a swipe, returns success/failure, or has side effects like screen changes. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's operation.

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 extremely concise with only two sentences: one stating the core purpose and another providing a critical prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with no wasted text, making it highly efficient.

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 (interactive gesture simulation with 7 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on what the tool returns, error conditions, or behavioral outcomes, which are essential for an agent to use it effectively in a testing or automation 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 fully documents all 7 parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining coordinate systems or typical duration values. This meets the baseline 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 action ('Swipe gesture') and target ('iOS simulator screen'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'android_swipe' or other iOS gesture tools like 'ios_tap', missing full sibling distinction.

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 implies usage context by mentioning the prerequisite 'Requires IDB to be installed', which helps determine when this tool is applicable. However, it provides no guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'android_swipe' or other iOS interaction tools, leaving usage decisions ambiguous.

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