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. It mentions retrieving HTML content, which is useful, but doesn't cover other traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, error handling, or authentication needs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence in Indonesian that front-loads the purpose ('Ambil detail satu tabel CSA') and includes an important detail about HTML content. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for a simple retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters. However, it lacks details on output format beyond 'HTML', error cases, or integration with sibling tools, leaving room for improvement in completeness.

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 both parameters ('domain' and 'id') adequately. The description implies these parameters are used to fetch a specific table but doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 action ('Ambil detail' meaning 'Get details') and resource ('satu tabel CSA'), specifying it retrieves a single CSA table with HTML content. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_static_table' or 'list_csa_tables', which might handle similar data but with different scopes or formats.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention how it differs from 'get_static_table' or 'list_csa_tables', nor does it specify prerequisites like needing a valid domain and ID from other tools. The description lacks context for tool selection.

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