BMKG MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does well by specifying it searches 'di seluruh peringatan aktif' (across all active alerts) and returns relevant ones, but doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or whether results are paginated. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 purpose statement, parameter explanations, and return value description in separate sections. It's appropriately sized at 4 sentences, though the Args/Returns formatting could be more integrated with the natural language flow. Every sentence adds value with no 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 (search with filtering), no annotations, but with an output schema present, the description does well. It covers purpose, parameters, and return content adequately. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, but it could benefit from mentioning error cases or prerequisites.

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 (titles only, no descriptions), the description fully compensates by providing clear semantic meaning for both parameters. It explains 'kecamatan' as the subdistrict name to search for with examples, and 'language' as the output language with valid values and default. This 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 specific action ('Mencari peringatan dini cuaca' - search for early weather warnings) and resource ('untuk kecamatan tertentu' - for a specific subdistrict). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'get_weather_alerts' (general alerts) and 'get_weather_alert_detail' (detailed view) by specifying the kecamatan-based filtering scope.

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 searching for active weather alerts affecting a specific kecamatan. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_weather_alerts' for broader searches or 'get_weather_forecast' for non-alert weather information.

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