BPS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While it states the tool clears cache and explains why you'd use it, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits: whether this operation requires special permissions, if it affects all users or just the caller, what happens during execution (immediate vs background), potential performance impact, or what the response looks like. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that each serve a clear purpose: the first states what the tool does, the second explains when to use it. There's no wasted text, and the information is front-loaded. The only minor issue is that it could be slightly more structured, but it's efficient overall.

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 that this is a mutation tool (cache clearing) with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but has clear gaps. It explains the purpose and basic usage context, but doesn't provide important details about behavioral characteristics, permissions, scope of effect, or response format. For a tool that presumably modifies system state, more contextual information 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?

The tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description doesn't need to explain any parameters, which is appropriate. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's no parameter documentation burden. The description correctly focuses on the tool's purpose rather than parameter details.

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: 'Bersihkan cache data BPS' (Clear BPS data cache) with the goal 'memastikan data terbaru diambil langsung dari API' (to ensure the latest data is fetched directly from the API). It uses a specific verb ('bersihkan' - clear/clean) and identifies the resource ('cache data BPS'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, which are mostly data retrieval tools rather than cache management.

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 implied usage guidance: 'Berguna jika ingin memastikan data terbaru diambil langsung dari API' (Useful if you want to ensure the latest data is fetched directly from the API). This suggests when to use it (when you suspect cached data might be stale), but doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. No explicit comparison to sibling tools is provided.

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