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 mentions listing for a domain and subject but fails to disclose critical behaviors: whether it's paginated (implied by 'page' parameter but not stated), what the output format is, rate limits, or authentication needs. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with three parameters.

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 purpose. It's front-loaded with no wasted words, though 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 no annotations, no output schema, and three parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what CSA tables are, the return format, pagination behavior, or error handling. For a list operation with filtering, this leaves the agent under-informed about how to interpret results or handle edge cases.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds minimal value by implying domain and subject are used for filtering, but doesn't explain semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., what 'domain' or 'subject' mean in context). Baseline 3 is appropriate as 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 'Daftar tabel CSA untuk domain dan subjek tertentu' clearly states the action (list) and resource (CSA tables) with scope (domain and subject), which is adequate. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_static_tables' or 'get_csa_table', leaving ambiguity about what makes CSA tables unique.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'list_static_tables' and 'get_csa_table', the description lacks any indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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