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 mentions 'case-insensitive' searching, which adds some context, but fails to describe critical behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format entails (especially 'tonl'), potential rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core functionality. There is no wasted verbiage, and it directly communicates the tool's purpose without redundancy or unnecessary details.

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. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list of requests, details), how results are structured, or behavioral aspects like pagination or limitations. For a search tool with three parameters and no structured output documentation, more contextual information is needed.

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 all three parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the search is 'case-insensitive', which relates to 'urlPattern' behavior. However, it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional semantic context, meeting the baseline 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: 'Search network requests by URL pattern (case-insensitive)'. It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('network requests'), and key constraint ('by URL pattern, case-insensitive'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_network_requests' or 'get_request_details', which may offer similar functionality.

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 sibling tools like 'get_network_requests' or 'search_logs', nor does it specify prerequisites, exclusions, or appropriate contexts. The agent must infer usage from the name and description alone.

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