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. It only states what the tool does (listing subjects) without any information about permissions, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap, as it doesn't help the agent understand how to handle the tool's behavior beyond basic functionality.

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. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. There's no wasted text, but it could be slightly more informative without losing 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 the complexity of listing subjects with filtering parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what CSA subjects are, how the output is structured, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with two parameters and no structured support, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 'subcat') fully described in the input schema. The description mentions 'domain dan kategori tertentu' (specific domain and category), which aligns with the parameters but adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate or add value.

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 states the tool's purpose as listing CSA subjects for specific domain and category, which is clear but vague. It uses the verb 'Daftar' (list) with the resource 'subjek CSA', but doesn't specify what CSA subjects are or how they differ from similar resources like 'list_subjects' or 'list_csa_categories' among the sibling tools. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the nature of CSA subjects.

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. With many sibling tools like 'list_subjects', 'list_csa_categories', and 'get_csa_table', there's no indication of how this tool differs or when it should be preferred. The mention of 'domain dan kategori tertentu' (specific domain and category) implies filtering, but no explicit usage context or exclusions are provided.

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