Navigate the Swiss construction cost plan (BKP) hierarchy by parent code to explore categories and codes.
Browse the BKP code hierarchy (Swiss construction cost plan)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Display language | en |
| parentCode | No | Parent BKP code. If omitted, shows root categories |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.4.0Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without any annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The word 'Browse' strongly implies a safe, read-only operation with no side effects, but the description does not explicitly state that no data is modified. It also does not mention any rate limits or potential errors, though for a simple browse operation this is less critical.
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, concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose. It contains no fluff, redundant phrasing, or unnecessary details, making it easy to parse and understand at a glance.
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?
The description covers the core purpose but omits any details about the return format, such as whether it returns a flat list or a nested hierarchy, or whether results are paginated. Given that no output schema is provided, this missing information could leave agents uncertain about how to handle the response, though the sibling browse tools likely share similar behavior.
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 schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters: 'lang' as display language and 'parentCode' with an explanatory note about root categories. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description itself adds no further parameter semantics or examples.
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 action ('Browse') and the specific resource ('BKP code hierarchy'), with a helpful parenthetical definition ('Swiss construction cost plan'). This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like browse_cpv_tree or browse_npk_tree.
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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many search and browse alternatives. It does not mention conditions for choosing browsing over searching, nor does it reference related tools like search_bkp_codes. Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.