BPS MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool lists press releases but provides no behavioral details about pagination (implied by 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication requirements, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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 short sentences that efficiently convey the core purpose. There's no wasted language, though it could be slightly more informative given the lack of annotations. The structure is straightforward and front-loaded with the main function.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what the return values look like (list format, fields included), pagination behavior, or any constraints. For a tool with 5 parameters and multiple sibling alternatives, more contextual information would be helpful for proper agent usage.

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 5 parameters thoroughly. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to.

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: listing official statistical press releases (Berita Resmi Statistik) from BPS. It specifies the resource (BRS) and that these contain the latest official data releases. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_press_release' or 'list_news' which might handle similar 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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_press_release' (singular) and 'list_news' available, the description offers no comparison or context about when this list-focused tool is appropriate versus other press release or news-related tools.

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