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 mentions the tool lists census activities and that the output includes IDs for subsequent use, but doesn't describe return format, pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error behavior. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 extremely concise - just two sentences that each earn their place. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides crucial usage context. There's zero wasted language, and the most important information (what the tool does) is front-loaded.

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 simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and hints at how the output is used, but doesn't describe the return format or structure. For a list operation that presumably returns multiple items, more detail about the response would be helpful despite the lack of output schema.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist. It earns a baseline 4 for not needing to compensate for parameter documentation gaps, though it doesn't add value beyond the schema (which already shows no parameters).

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: 'Daftar kegiatan sensus BPS' (List BPS census activities) with examples of specific census types. It uses a specific verb ('Daftar' - List) and identifies the resource (census activities). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_census_topics' or other list_* tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance by stating 'Gunakan ID kegiatan untuk mengambil topik dan data sensus' (Use activity ID to retrieve topics and census data), suggesting this tool is a prerequisite for other operations. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_census_topics' or 'list_subjects', nor does it provide exclusion criteria.

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