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 for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that publications contain analysis and reports, but fails to describe key behaviors like pagination (implied by the 'page' parameter), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output looks like (e.g., list format, error handling). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 are front-loaded, stating the tool's purpose efficiently. There's no wasted text, but it could be more structured by explicitly mentioning filtering or pagination to improve clarity without adding bulk.

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 has 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination or output format, nor does it differentiate from siblings, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand how to invoke and interpret results 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 5 parameters with descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, such as how 'domain', 'keyword', or 'year/month' interact in filtering. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but the description doesn't compensate or enhance understanding.

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 BPS publications containing deep analysis and statistical reports, which clarifies the resource (publications) and their content. However, it uses vague language ('Daftar publikasi BPS' translates to 'List BPS publications') without specifying how it differs from sibling tools like 'get_publication' or 'search', making it unclear about its unique scope or filtering capabilities.

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. With sibling tools like 'get_publication' (likely for single publications) and 'search' (possibly broader searches), the description lacks context on this tool's specific use cases, such as whether it's for browsing all publications or filtered lists, leaving the agent without direction.

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