ojk_illegalsList illegal investment products/apps flagged by OJK, 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_illegals"
}
}| 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?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the source attribution (flagged by OJK) and says nothing about pagination behavior, result ordering, or the fact that all three parameters are optional with a default page size.
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 filter capability is stated inline. It is efficient, though the brevity drifts toward under-specification rather than ideal density.
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?
With three undocumented parameters, no output schema, and no explanation of paging or return shape, the description is thinner than a read/list tool of this complexity warrants. An agent can call it, but cannot make an informed decision about page sizing or result interpretation.
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%, so the description must carry the burden, yet it only mentions the optional name filter and never explains limit (default 50, max 200) or offset. It also does not say whether name matching is exact, prefix, or substring, which matters for an agent constructing the call.
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 illegal investment products/apps flagged by OJK." An agent can tell this is the list endpoint for flagged entities and implicitly distinguish it from ojk_illegal_get (singular get), though it never names that sibling 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 phrase "optionally filtered by name" implies one calling pattern, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing to ojk_illegal_get for detail lookups or to ojk_products/ojk_apps for the legal equivalents. Usage is inferable from the name rather than stated.
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.