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 explaining the tool searches a local database, supports all administrative levels, returns hierarchical results, and provides integration guidance with get_weather_forecast(). It doesn't mention performance characteristics, error handling, or authentication requirements, but covers core behavioral aspects adequately.

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 (purpose, Args, Returns, Note), uses bullet points for admin_level values, and every sentence serves a purpose. It's appropriately sized for a tool with 2 parameters and provides necessary information without redundancy.

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 is quite complete. It explains what the tool does, documents parameters thoroughly, describes the return format, and provides integration guidance. The main gap is lack of explicit error cases or limitations.

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 fully compensates by providing detailed parameter documentation including examples for location_name and a comprehensive explanation of admin_level values with translations and default behavior. The Args section adds significant 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 tool's purpose with specific verb ('Mencari' - search) and resource ('kode wilayah Indonesia' - Indonesian region codes), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on location code lookup rather than earthquake or weather data retrieval. The opening sentence provides a complete functional statement.

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 about when to use this tool (searching Indonesian location codes at various administrative levels) and includes a helpful note about using village codes with get_weather_forecast(). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or provide direct alternatives among the sibling tools.

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