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 for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions the tool's purpose and prerequisites, but doesn't describe what the tool returns (data format, structure), error conditions, rate limits, authentication requirements, or any other behavioral characteristics. This leaves significant gaps for a data retrieval tool.

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 clear purposes: stating the tool's function and providing usage guidance. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. No wasted words, though it could potentially be structured more clearly.

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 data retrieval tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what kind of data is returned, the response format, error handling, or any behavioral characteristics. The guidance about prerequisite tools is helpful but insufficient for full contextual understanding.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 6 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema descriptions. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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: 'Ambil data dari tabel dinamis BPS' (Get data from BPS dynamic tables) and identifies it as the main tool for statistical data. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_static_table' or 'get_csa_table' beyond calling itself the 'main' tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool ('untuk mendapatkan data statistik' - for getting statistical data) and references two specific sibling tools ('list_variables' and 'list_periods') as prerequisites for finding required parameter values. It doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'get_static_table'.

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