Metro Logs MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It indicates this is a discovery/listing operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't specify behavioral details like whether it requires an active app connection, what format the output returns, or if there are any rate limits. It adds some context but lacks operational specifics.

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 sentence states the purpose with specific details, and the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 (discovery operation in a debugging context), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is adequate but incomplete. It explains what the tool does and why to use it, but lacks details on output format, connection requirements, or error handling, which would be helpful for an agent.

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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing instead on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('globally available debugging objects'), specifying the target environment ('connected React Native app') and providing concrete examples ('Apollo Client, Redux store, React DevTools, etc.'). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on debugging objects rather than UI elements, logs, or network requests.

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 for when to use this tool ('to discover what state management and debugging tools are available'), but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among the many sibling tools. The guidance is helpful but could be more comparative.

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