bim-mcp

bim_price_stats

Calculates weekly BİM Aktüel price statistics: product count, min/median/mean/max TL prices, and five lowest- and highest-priced items; optional date key selects the week.

Instructions

Price statistics for one Aktüel week: count, min/median/mean/ max price in TL, the 5 cheapest and 5 priciest products. date_key: a key from bim_list_aktuel_dates; omit for the current week.

Tool call template

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": "bim_price_stats"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`date_key`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the operation's character: it is a read-only aggregate and it names the exact statistics returned, including the cheapest/priciest lists. Missing only peripheral details like whether the week boundary uses local time or how the outputs are ordered beyond price.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and followed immediately by the only parameter's provenance and default. No filler or redundancy; every clause carries information the agent needs.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter, read-only aggregation with an output schema present, the description supplies everything needed to select and invoke it correctly: purpose, scope, parameter source, and default. Return-value structure is rightly left to the output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% and the sole parameter is undocumented in structured data, so the description must compensate; it does by naming the parameter, its source enumeration, and the null/omitted default behavior. Format details of the key string itself remain implicit.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a precise verb+resource pair ('Price statistics for one Aktüel week') and enumerates exactly what is computed: count, min/median/mean/max in TL plus the 5 cheapest and 5 priciest products. That scope separates it cleanly from listing siblings such as bim_aktuel_products.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly tells the agent where the date_key comes from (bim_list_aktuel_dates) and that omitting it yields the current week, which is the key usage decision for this tool. It stops short of stating when to prefer it over a product-listing sibling, but the scope sentence makes that largely self-evident.

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

Deploy Server