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 describes the tool's behavior: tapping at coordinates, with optional duration for long press, and using a booted simulator by default unless UDID is specified. It also mentions the IDB dependency requirement. However, it doesn't cover error conditions or what happens if coordinates are out of bounds.

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 structured and concise: three sentences that each earn their place. The first states the purpose, the second provides workflow guidance, and the third specifies prerequisites. There's zero waste or redundancy.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does an excellent job covering the essential context: purpose, workflow, prerequisites, and behavioral aspects. The main gap is the lack of information about return values or error conditions, which would be helpful given the absence of an output schema.

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 adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions using tapX/tapY values from ocr_screenshot, which provides context for the x and y parameters, but doesn't add significant value beyond what's already in the schema descriptions.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Tap at specific coordinates on an iOS simulator screen.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'ios_tap_element' (which taps elements rather than coordinates) and 'android_tap' (which targets Android instead of iOS).

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 workflow guidance: 'Use ocr_screenshot first to get tap coordinates, then use this tool with the returned tapX/tapY values.' It also specifies prerequisites: 'Requires IDB (brew install idb-companion).' This gives clear when-to-use instructions and mentions a required dependency.

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