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 discloses that the HTTP server runs in-process to share state and that restarting is needed for code changes, which adds useful context about the tool's effect and prerequisites. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., temporary downtime, impact on other tools), rate limits, or error handling, leaving some behavioral 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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key information (server runs in-process, restart for changes). Every sentence earns its place by providing essential context and usage guidance, with no wasted words 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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple restart with no parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose, when to use it, and the underlying reason (in-process server). However, it could benefit from mentioning what 'restart' entails (e.g., stops and starts the server) or confirmation of success, slightly reducing 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?

The tool has 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%, so no parameter information is needed. The description doesn't discuss parameters, which is appropriate, but it could briefly note the lack of inputs for clarity. Baseline for 0 params is 4, as it adequately handles the absence of parameters without adding unnecessary details.

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 tool's purpose: to restart the HTTP server, which is necessary to apply code changes due to the server running in-process. It specifies the verb ('restart') and resource ('HTTP server'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'reload_app' or 'connect_metro', which is why it's not a 5.

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 guidance on when to use this tool: 'To apply code changes, restart the MCP session.' It directly states the trigger condition (code changes) and implies an alternative (not using it when changes aren't needed), making it clear and actionable.

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