BMKG MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the tool's behavior: it retrieves a fixed list of 15 items, specifies the data source (BMKG), and details the returned information (time, location, magnitude, depth, and felt areas). This covers key aspects like output format and data origin, though it could mention rate limits or update frequency for a higher score.

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 highly concise and well-structured in three sentences: the first states the purpose, the second details the return values, and the third specifies the data source. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what it returns, and the data source, which is sufficient for an AI agent to understand and invoke it correctly without needing to cover parameters or output details that are handled by the schema.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter information, and it correctly focuses on the tool's function without unnecessary details, maintaining an appropriate baseline score.

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 tool's purpose with specific verbs ('Mengambil daftar' - 'Retrieves list') and resources ('15 gempabumi terkini yang dirasakan masyarakat' - '15 latest earthquakes felt by the public'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_latest_earthquake' and 'get_significant_earthquakes' by specifying it's about felt earthquakes with a fixed count of 15.

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 implies usage context by specifying '15 gempabumi terkini yang dirasakan masyarakat' (15 latest earthquakes felt by the public), which suggests when to use this tool (for recent felt earthquakes) versus alternatives like 'get_latest_earthquake' or 'get_significant_earthquakes'. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, keeping it at a 4.

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