ojk_appsList legal (OJK-registered) investment apps in Indonesia, optionally filtered by name.
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": "ojk_apps"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered by structured data. The description adds domain context (Indonesia, OJK-registered/legal) but says nothing about pagination behavior or result size despite limit and offset being present. Some added value, no contradictions.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource, scope, and filter capability are all stated up front. Nothing redundant or padded.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should convey the shape of results and whether pagination is involved, which it does not. For a simple read-only list tool with fully enumerated annotations it is minimally adequate, but the missing pagination guidance leaves a real gap.
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 0% and there are three parameters, so the description carries the full burden. It explains only that 'name' is an optional filter; limit (default 50, max 200) and offset are never mentioned, leaving pagination semantics entirely unexplained.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('List ... investment apps') plus a scope qualifier ('legal (OJK-registered)') that implicitly separates it from the illegal-app siblings like ojk_illegals. It does not explicitly name a sibling to differentiate from, and it doesn't clarify how it relates to ojk_app_get, but purpose is unambiguous.
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 phrase 'optionally filtered by name' implies the browse-then-narrow workflow, which is useful context for choosing this over a detail tool. However, it never says when to use this list endpoint versus ojk_app_get or the illegal-app tools, and gives no exclusions or prerequisites.
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.