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. It states it lists data units but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, or requires authentication. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 purpose in the first sentence and providing examples in the second. Both sentences earn their place by clarifying the tool's function, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., explicitly stating it's a read operation).

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 a simple parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., list format, fields), behavioral constraints, or error conditions. For a tool in a server with many list_* siblings, more context is needed to distinguish and use it effectively.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with one parameter 'domain' documented as 'Kode domain BPS'. The description adds minimal value beyond this, mentioning 'domain tertentu' (specific domain) but not elaborating on semantics. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as 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 satuan data' (List data units) with examples provided (Jiwa, Persen, Rupiah). It specifies the resource (data units) and context (used in a specific domain), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_variables or list_subjects, which list different types of resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions 'di domain tertentu' (in a specific domain), implying context, but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other list_* tools. Without this, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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