BMKG MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses this is a read operation from a local database and mentions the output format ('daftar kelurahan/desa dengan kode lengkap'), but doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like error handling, data freshness, rate limits, or authentication requirements. It adds some context about the data's purpose but leaves significant gaps in behavioral understanding.

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 appropriately sized with three focused sentences: purpose statement, parameter explanation with example, and return value clarification. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The bilingual presentation (Indonesian/English) is slightly redundant but still efficient. Every sentence adds value, though the structure could be slightly more streamlined.

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 simple nature (single parameter, read-only operation, has output schema), the description provides adequate context. It covers the purpose, parameter meaning with example, and output purpose. The existence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return structure. However, for a database query tool, additional context about data source reliability or update frequency would be beneficial.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage (schema has no parameter descriptions), the description fully compensates by providing essential semantic information: it explains what 'district_code' represents ('Kode kecamatan'), provides a concrete example ('33.02.07 untuk Sumpiuh'), and clarifies this is a required input. The description adds substantial value beyond the bare schema.

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 specific action ('Mendapatkan daftar semua kelurahan/desa' - Getting a list of all villages/subdistricts) and resource ('dalam kecamatan tertentu dari database lokal' - within a specific district from the local database). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on village-level data retrieval rather than earthquake or weather data, which are handled by other tools.

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 it retrieves village data for weather forecasting purposes ('siap digunakan untuk prakiraan cuaca'), but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_location_code' or 'search_weather_alerts_by_kecamatan'. It provides some directional guidance but lacks explicit comparison or exclusion criteria.

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