BPS 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 that the tool 'Tidak memerlukan API key' (Doesn't require API key), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention rate limits, pagination behavior (beyond the page parameter), error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description adds some value but leaves significant behavioral aspects unspecified.

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 efficiently structured in four sentences: purpose, output format, prerequisite, and unique/authentication details. Every sentence adds value with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides good purpose and usage context but lacks behavioral details about the search operation. It doesn't explain what the return structure looks like (beyond mentioning pages and snippets) or potential limitations. For a search tool with no output schema, more detail about result format would be helpful.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by reinforcing that publication_id comes from 'field deep_search_id di hasil allstats_search' and noting this searches 'di dalam isi PDF' (within PDF content). However, it doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond what's in the schema descriptions.

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 performs 'Full-text search di dalam isi PDF publikasi BPS' (full-text search within BPS publication PDF contents) and specifies it 'Mengembalikan halaman yang cocok beserta cuplikan teks' (returns matching pages with text snippets). It distinguishes from sibling 'allstats_search' by explaining this searches within PDF content while that tool likely searches metadata.

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: 'Dapatkan publication_id dari hasil allstats_search (field deep_search_id)' (Get publication_id from allstats_search results). It also notes 'Fitur unik — tidak tersedia di WebAPI' (Unique feature — not available in WebAPI). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or compare with other search-related siblings like 'search'.

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