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 listing subjects with optional filtering by subcat, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operation.

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, stating the core purpose in the first sentence with a clarifying example. No wasted sentences, though it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating usage notes.

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, no output schema, and 2 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values, error handling, and behavioral constraints, making it inadequate for a tool that likely returns a list of subjects. More context is needed for effective use.

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 both parameters (domain and subcat). The description adds minimal value by mentioning domain filtering and an example code, but doesn't provide additional semantics beyond what's in the schema, such as format details for subcat. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles most documentation.

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 statistical data subjects available in BPS for a specific domain, with examples of subjects like 'Kependudukan' (Population). It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_csa_subjects by specifying 'BPS' (Indonesia's statistics agency) and 'statistical data subjects,' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from all similar tools (e.g., list_census_topics).

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 implies usage when needing subjects for a domain, with a hint to use resolve_domain for domain codes, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like list_csa_subjects or list_census_topics. No exclusions or clear alternatives are stated, leaving some ambiguity.

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