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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool lists simulators but doesn't describe what information is returned (e.g., names, UDIDs, states), whether it requires specific permissions or environment setup, or if there are rate limits or side effects. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely interacts with system resources.

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 a single, efficient sentence with zero wasted words. It front-loads the core purpose ('List available iOS simulators') without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a tool that likely returns structured data about simulators. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list of objects with properties), error conditions, or dependencies, leaving the agent with insufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond basic invocation.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'onlyBooted' parameter fully documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying a listing action, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting without compensating for any gaps.

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 ('available iOS simulators'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'list_android_devices' by specifying iOS simulators, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other iOS tools like 'ios_boot_simulator' or 'ios_describe_all' beyond the listing function.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing Xcode or a running simulator service), compare it to 'list_android_devices' for cross-platform scenarios, or indicate when filtering with 'onlyBooted' is appropriate versus other listing methods.

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