BPS 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 mentions the tool doesn't require an API key (useful auth context) and positions it as a fallback alternative to WebAPI search. However, it doesn't describe pagination behavior (implied by 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, error conditions, or what the search results look like.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that efficiently communicate the tool's purpose, scope, and key usage context. Every word earns its place with no wasted text. It's 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?

For a search tool with 8 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description provides adequate context about what it searches and when to use it. However, without annotations or output schema, it should ideally describe the result format, pagination behavior, or error handling to be more complete for agent use.

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 8 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. The baseline is 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained how parameters interact (e.g., content filtering with domain/year constraints).

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 searches BPS content through the AllStats Search Engine and lists the content types it covers (publications, tables, press releases, etc.). It distinguishes this as a general search tool but doesn't explicitly differentiate it from the sibling 'search' tool, which appears to be a similar function.

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 good usage context: it's useful for discovery, finding publications, or as an alternative/fallback to WebAPI search. It also mentions it doesn't require an API key. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus the sibling 'search' tool or other content-specific tools like 'get_publication'.

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