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 of behavioral disclosure. It describes what the tool returns (detailed CAP information including affected areas) but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like error handling (e.g., what happens with invalid CAP codes), rate limits, authentication requirements, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is accurate but incomplete for behavioral transparency.

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 well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with the core purpose, then provides parameter explanations in a clear 'Args' section, and concludes with return value details. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy or unnecessary information. The bilingual nature (Indonesian/English) is efficiently handled.

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 that there's an output schema (though not shown here), the description doesn't need to fully explain return values, which it acknowledges by listing key return fields. With no annotations and 2 parameters well-explained, the description provides good context for a read-only retrieval tool. However, it could be more complete by addressing potential errors or behavioral constraints that aren't covered by annotations or 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation in the schema. It successfully explains both parameters: 'cap_code' is described as a CAP code with an example, and 'language' is explained as the output language with options and default value. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more context about CAP code format or validation.

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 detail peringatan dini cuaca' - retrieving early weather alert details) and resources ('untuk provinsi tertentu berdasarkan CAP code' - for a specific province based on CAP code). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_weather_alerts' (likely listing alerts) and 'search_weather_alerts_by_kecamatan' (searching by district) by focusing on detailed information for a specific alert identified by CAP code.

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 detailed information about a specific weather alert is needed, identified by its CAP code. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives, but the context implies it's for detailed retrieval rather than listing or searching, which is covered by sibling tools. This gives good guidance but lacks explicit exclusions.

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