Metro Logs MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It explains the scanning behavior and connection establishment, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like error handling, timeout behavior, what happens if no servers are found, or whether this tool modifies system state. The description implies it's a setup/connection tool but lacks operational details.

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 with two sentences: the first states the core functionality, the second provides crucial usage context. Every word earns its place, and the most important information (purpose and when to use) is front-loaded.

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 well by explaining the tool's role in the debugging workflow and its relationship to other tools. However, it doesn't describe what the tool returns (e.g., connection status, found servers list) or error conditions, leaving some gaps for a tool that establishes critical debugging connections.

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 (startPort, endPort) with defaults and descriptions. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, maintaining the baseline score for high schema coverage.

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 with specific verbs ('scan for running Metro bundler servers', 'automatically connect to any found React Native apps'), identifies the resource (Metro servers, React Native apps), and distinguishes it from siblings by establishing connections needed for other tools like get_logs, execute_in_app, and reload_app.

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 ('typically the FIRST tool to call when starting a debugging session') and why ('establishes the connection needed for other tools'), clearly positioning it as an initialization step before using sibling tools for debugging operations.

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