BPS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool lists derived variables but fails to describe key behaviors like whether it's a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, rate limits, or pagination. This leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 brief and to the point, consisting of a single sentence with an example. It's front-loaded with the main purpose, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly stating the verb. There's no wasted text, making it efficient.

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 has no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavioral traits, return values, and usage context, which are crucial for an agent to effectively invoke this tool. The minimal description doesn't compensate for the missing structured data.

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 fully documents the two parameters (domain and var). The description adds no additional meaning about the parameters beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the examples in context. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles 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 states the tool lists derived/aggregated categories with examples (total, average), which clarifies the resource type. However, it doesn't specify the verb precisely (e.g., 'retrieve' or 'fetch') or differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_variables' or 'list_vertical_variables', making it somewhat vague.

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 such as 'list_variables' or 'list_vertical_variables'. The description only states what it does, not the context or prerequisites for its use, leaving the agent without direction.

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