gempa_dirasakanGet the 15 latest FELT earthquakes in Indonesia (ones residents reported feeling), ordered by datetime descending.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "gempa_dirasakan"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is supplemental — and it delivers by disclosing the fixed result cap of 15, the descending datetime ordering, the geographic scope, and the definition of "felt." These are behavioral facts absent from the annotations and schema.
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?
A single sentence with the key constraints (15, felt, Indonesia, descending order) packed in and front-loaded, plus a parenthetical gloss that removes ambiguity. Nothing is redundant.
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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the description covers count, ordering, scope, and the data source referenced in the title (BMKG). Only explicit sibling routing and a note that results may be empty or stale are missing, which are minor for this complexity.
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 takes no parameters (empty object schema), so there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline is 4. The description correctly does not invent parameter detail.
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 gives a specific verb and resource ("Get the 15 latest FELT earthquakes in Indonesia"), explains the qualifier ("ones residents reported feeling"), and states ordering. This meaningfully separates it from gempa_terkini/gempa_history by emphasizing the felt-only filter, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 felt-only scope implies when to reach for this tool over a general earthquake feed, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative. An agent must infer the routing decision from the word FELT alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.