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 source (BPS website) and scope (general news vs. BRS), but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 in a single sentence, with no wasted words. It efficiently states the purpose and key distinction. However, it could be slightly improved with more structured guidance, but it's appropriately sized for its content.

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 list operation with 3 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose and scope but misses behavioral details and usage context. It's minimally adequate but has clear gaps, especially for a tool without structured safety or output information.

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). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining how parameters interact or providing examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Daftar berita dari website BPS' (List news from the BPS website). It specifies the resource (news) and distinguishes it from BRS (Berita Resmi Statistik) by noting this is general BPS news. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_news' or 'get_press_release', which prevents a score of 5.

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 by contrasting with BRS, but it doesn't specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_news' or 'search'. There's no explicit context for when or when not to use it, nor any mention of prerequisites or alternatives, leaving the agent with insufficient direction.

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