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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: data source (BMKG), forecast scope (3 days with 3-hour intervals, ~24 forecasts total), and return format details. It doesn't mention rate limits or error conditions, but provides substantial operational context.

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 with clear sections (Args, Returns, Sumber Data, Note) and efficiently conveys necessary information. While comprehensive, it maintains appropriate length with each sentence adding value. Minor room for tightening exists in the example explanation.

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 moderate complexity, no annotations, and the presence of an output schema, the description provides excellent completeness. It covers purpose, parameter semantics, return content, data source, usage prerequisites, and format examples - everything needed for effective tool invocation despite the structured data gaps.

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 for the single parameter, the description fully compensates by explaining the parameter's meaning ('Kode wilayah Indonesia level desa/kelurahan adm4'), format ('[kode_provinsi].[kode_kabkota].[kode_kecamatan].[kode_desa]'), providing a concrete example ('31.71.01.1001 = DKI Jakarta > Jakarta Pusat > Gambir > Gambir'), and noting the default value.

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 ('Mengambil prakiraan cuaca' - Get weather forecast) and resource ('berdasarkan kode wilayah adm4' - based on adm4 region code), distinguishing it from sibling tools like earthquake or alert tools. It precisely defines what the tool does without being tautological.

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 explicitly provides when-to-use guidance: 'Untuk mencari kode wilayah, gunakan search_location_code() terlebih dahulu' (To find region codes, use search_location_code() first). It names the specific alternative tool and establishes a clear prerequisite workflow.

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