BPS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does (list topics) and a prerequisite. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, error conditions, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 and well-structured in just two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides essential prerequisite guidance. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.

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 (single required parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the purpose and prerequisite but lacks behavioral context and output details. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to explain what the tool returns and its operational characteristics.

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%, with the single parameter 'kegiatan' fully documented in the schema as 'ID kegiatan sensus (dari list_census_events).' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 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: 'Daftar topik data yang tersedia untuk kegiatan sensus tertentu' (List data topics available for a specific census activity). It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('data topics'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_census_events' beyond mentioning it as a prerequisite.

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 context for when to use this tool: for listing data topics for a specific census activity. It explicitly mentions the prerequisite to 'use list_census_events to get the activity ID,' which is helpful guidance. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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