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 describes the resource (infographics) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior (implied by the 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it effectively.

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 with two sentences that directly state the purpose and define infographics, with no wasted words. However, it could be more front-loaded by immediately clarifying the listing scope or differentiating from siblings, which would improve structure.

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 a listing tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., pagination, rate limits), output format, and differentiation from sibling tools, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to use the tool correctly.

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 ('domain', 'keyword', 'page') with descriptions. The description does not add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining how parameters interact (e.g., 'keyword' filters results) or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 infographics from BPS and defines what infographics are ('visualisasi data statistik yang mudah dipahami'), which clarifies the resource. However, it lacks specificity about the listing scope (e.g., all infographics, filtered) and does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_infographic' (which likely retrieves a specific infographic) or 'search' (which might handle broader queries).

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. It does not mention sibling tools such as 'get_infographic' for retrieving a specific infographic or 'search' for broader queries, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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