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. It discloses key behavioral traits: it's a read operation ('Mengambil'), specifies the data source (BMKG), and outlines return details (time, location, magnitude, tsunami potential). It doesn't mention rate limits or authentication needs, but for a public data tool, this is reasonably transparent.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: purpose, return details, and data source. Each sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. No wasted words.

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 output schema), the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, the data source, and what to expect in returns. With an output schema, it doesn't need to detail return values further, making this sufficient for an agent.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, so it meets the baseline of 4 for zero-parameter tools. It appropriately focuses on what the tool does rather than input details.

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: 'Mengambil data gempa bumi terbaru yang dirasakan' (Retrieve latest felt earthquake data). It specifies the criteria (M 5.0+ or significant) and distinguishes from siblings like 'get_felt_earthquakes' and 'get_significant_earthquakes' by focusing on the single latest event rather than multiple events.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: for the latest felt/significant earthquake data. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the sibling tool names imply different scopes (e.g., 'get_felt_earthquakes' for multiple events).

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