BPS MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (lists variables) without mentioning whether it's read-only, paginated, rate-limited, requires authentication, or what the output format looks like. The description lacks critical behavioral context needed for safe and effective use.

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 with two sentences that directly address the tool's function. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second provides helpful examples. There's no wasted verbiage, though it could be slightly more structured with explicit usage context.

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. While it states the basic purpose, it lacks critical information about behavioral traits, output format, pagination behavior, and differentiation from similar tools. For a tool with 4 parameters and multiple sibling tools, more contextual information would be 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 all four parameters with descriptions. The tool description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. This meets the baseline expectation when schema coverage is complete, but doesn't provide additional semantic context.

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 data variables in BPS dynamic tables. It specifies the resource (variables) and provides examples (Population Count, Poverty Rate), which helps distinguish it from generic list tools. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like list_derived_variables or list_vertical_variables, which appear to serve similar listing functions.

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. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like list_derived_variables or list_vertical_variables, nor does it explain prerequisites, filtering logic, or appropriate contexts for use. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone.

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