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 for behavioral disclosure. It states it retrieves details but doesn't describe what 'details' include, error handling, authentication needs, rate limits, or response format. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning parameters, but this isn't required for conciseness.

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 incomplete for a tool with 2 required parameters. It doesn't explain what details are returned, error conditions, or how it differs from similar tools. For a read operation in a context-rich server with many siblings, more guidance is needed to ensure correct usage.

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 ('domain' and 'id') documented in the schema. The description implies these are needed to fetch a specific press release but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format examples or domain/ID relationships). Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 Berita Resmi Statistik (BRS) dari BPS' meaning 'one Official Statistics News from BPS'). It's specific about retrieving a single press release by ID and domain. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_news' or 'list_press_releases', which would require a 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_press_releases' for browsing or 'get_news' for other news types, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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