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. It implies this is a read-only operation (listing data) but doesn't explicitly state it. The description adds some behavioral context by explaining the meaning of 'type' parameter values, which helps understand what data will be returned. However, it doesn't disclose other important traits like response format, pagination, rate limits, or authentication requirements, leaving gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 in Indonesian. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides crucial usage guidance for the 'type' parameter. Every word serves a clear purpose with zero redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and follows with implementation details.

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 (2 parameters, enum-based filtering) and no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and how to use the 'type' parameter but doesn't cover response format, error conditions, or relationship to other tools. For a listing tool with administrative data, more context about the returned data structure would be helpful, but the core functionality is clear.

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 both parameters thoroughly. The description adds value by providing practical examples and clarifying the semantics of 'type' values in Indonesian context ('prov' for provinces, 'kab' for regencies). It also implicitly explains that 'prov' parameter is only needed for 'kabbyprov' type. This goes beyond the schema's technical descriptions, earning a score above the baseline of 3.

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 domain/wilayah BPS (provinsi, kabupaten/kota)' which translates to 'List BPS domains/regions (provinces, regencies/cities)'. It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('BPS domains/regions'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like 'resolve_domain' or 'search' by focusing on listing administrative divisions rather than resolving or searching content.

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 explicit guidance on when to use specific parameter values: 'Gunakan type='prov' untuk provinsi, 'kab' untuk semua kabupaten, 'kabbyprov' untuk kabupaten per provinsi' (Use type='prov' for provinces, 'kab' for all regencies, 'kabbyprov' for regencies per province). This clarifies the context for different filtering options. However, it doesn't mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'resolve_domain' or other list_* tools, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions.

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