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 implies a read-only operation ('ambil detail' suggests retrieval) but doesn't explicitly state it's non-destructive or confirm read-only behavior. It also lacks details on authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving behavioral traits unclear.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's for retrieving details of a single publication.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 required parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details, usage context, and output information. Without annotations or output schema, the agent must rely on the name and schema alone, leaving gaps in understanding how to effectively use the tool.

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 doesn't add any semantic details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'domain' represents or how to obtain an 'id'. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 'retrieve details') and resource ('satu publikasi BPS' meaning 'one BPS publication'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_publications' by specifying retrieval of a single publication's details rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other detail-retrieval tools if they exist.

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 prerequisites like needing a publication ID from 'list_publications', nor does it differentiate from other retrieval tools like 'get_static_table' or 'get_infographic'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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