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 key traits: it's a read-only operation (implied by 'takes a screenshot'), returns coordinates ('tapX/tapY'), and has performance and compatibility advantages ('Faster than parsing accessibility hierarchies', 'Works consistently across iOS and Android'). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like OCR accuracy, screen resolution dependencies, or error handling, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose and recommendation. It uses bullet-like advantages and clear usage instructions. However, it could be slightly more concise by integrating the advantages into a smoother narrative, and some phrasing is repetitive (e.g., 'tap-ready coordinates' mentioned multiple times).

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 (OCR-based UI interaction) and lack of annotations or output schema, the description does a good job of explaining what the tool does, when to use it, and its benefits. It covers the core functionality and differentiation from siblings. However, it doesn't detail the output format (e.g., structure of extracted text and coordinates) or error cases, which would enhance completeness.

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 both parameters (platform and deviceId) with descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how these parameters affect OCR processing or coordinate extraction. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: 'Takes a screenshot and extracts all visible text with tap-ready coordinates using OCR.' It specifies the verb ('takes', 'extracts'), resource ('screenshot', 'visible text'), and output ('tap-ready coordinates'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like android_describe_all or ios_describe_point by emphasizing OCR-based text extraction with coordinates.

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 usage guidelines: 'RECOMMENDED: Use this tool FIRST when you need to find and tap UI elements' and 'USE THIS FOR: Finding buttons, labels, menu items, tab bars, or any text you need to tap.' It contrasts with alternatives by listing advantages over accessibility trees (e.g., 'Works on ANY visible text regardless of accessibility labels'), guiding the agent on when to prefer this tool over others like android_find_element or ios_find_element.

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