BPS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states it retrieves details but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks important operational context.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence in Indonesian that directly states the tool's purpose. No wasted words or unnecessary elaboration. The description is 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 tool with 2 required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what details are returned, the response format, error handling, or authentication requirements. The agent would need to guess about the tool's behavior and output based on minimal information.

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%, with both parameters clearly documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning about the parameters beyond what's in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the heavy lifting, though the description could have explained the relationship between domain and ID or provided examples.

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' - Get details) and resource ('satu berita dari website BPS' - one news item from BPS website). It distinguishes from sibling 'list_news' which presumably lists multiple news items rather than getting details of one. However, it doesn't specify what details are retrieved or the format.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it's for retrieving details of a specific news item, but doesn't mention prerequisites (like needing to know domain and ID first), nor does it reference the 'list_news' sibling tool that might help identify items to retrieve.

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