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 output format ('HTML') which is useful, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior (implied by 'page' parameter but not explained), rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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 appropriately concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with the main function. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning it's a listing/filtering operation rather than just describing what static tables are.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior, output format details beyond 'HTML', error handling, or how to interpret results. The agent would struggle to use this effectively without trial and error or external knowledge about BPS data structures.

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. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It doesn't explain how parameters interact (e.g., combining domain, keyword, year, month filters) or provide examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate when schema does the documentation work.

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 static BPS tables that contain HTML-formatted data. It specifies the resource ('tabel statis BPS') and the output format ('HTML'), but doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_static_table' or 'list_csa_tables' which might handle similar data types.

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 many sibling tools for listing/searching different data types (e.g., 'list_csa_tables', 'list_publications', 'search'), the description offers no context about when this specific static table listing is appropriate versus other listing or search tools.

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