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 mentions the tool is 'useful for understanding definitions', which implies a read-only, informational operation, but doesn't specify whether it's safe (non-destructive), what authentication might be required, rate limits, pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter but not explained), or error handling. The description adds some context about the glossary's purpose but lacks critical behavioral details.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and utility. There's no unnecessary information or repetition. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the parameters or usage context, but it's efficient as is.

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 complexity (a search tool with 3 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and utility but lacks details on behavior, output format, or error handling. The schema provides parameter documentation, but the description doesn't fill gaps in behavioral transparency or usage guidelines, making it incomplete for optimal agent use.

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 three parameters (domain, keyword, page) with descriptions. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or clarification about these parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what 'domain' codes represent or how 'keyword' searches work). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't compensate further.

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: 'Cari istilah di glosarium statistik BPS' (Search for terms in the BPS statistical glossary). It specifies the resource (BPS statistical glossary) and the action (search for terms/definitions). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search' or 'allstats_search', which might also search BPS data but for different resources.

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 minimal usage guidance: 'Berguna untuk memahami definisi dan pengertian indikator statistik' (Useful for understanding definitions and meanings of statistical indicators). This implies the tool is for glossary lookups, but it doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'search' or 'allstats_search', nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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