BMKG MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: it returns 15 items, filters by magnitude ≥5.0, includes specific data fields (time, location, magnitude, depth, tsunami potential), and cites the data source (BMKG). However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like rate limits, data freshness, or error conditions, which would be helpful for a tool with no annotations.

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: two sentences that efficiently convey purpose, scope, return details, and data source. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. The first sentence states what the tool does, and the second provides additional context about the returned data and source.

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 with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains what the tool returns and the data source, which complements the output schema. However, it could be more complete by mentioning any constraints (e.g., data update frequency) or typical use cases, though the output schema likely covers return structure.

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% (empty schema). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 daftar 15 gempabumi terkini dengan magnitudo 5.0 atau lebih' (Retrieves a list of 15 recent earthquakes with magnitude 5.0 or higher). It specifies the exact resource (earthquakes), quantity (15), and magnitude threshold (5.0+), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_latest_earthquake' (singular) and 'get_felt_earthquakes' (different criteria).

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: when you need recent significant earthquakes (magnitude ≥5.0). It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficiently clear given the sibling tools. For example, 'get_latest_earthquake' might return a single latest event regardless of magnitude, while this tool returns multiple filtered events.

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