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 mentions support for fuzzy matching, which adds some behavioral context, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what happens if no match is found. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and includes essential details about input support. There is no wasted language, and every part contributes directly to understanding the tool's functionality.

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's moderate complexity (single parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the purpose and input semantics well, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral constraints, which are important for a conversion tool with fuzzy matching.

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 the single parameter 'query'. The description adds value by specifying the types of inputs accepted (official names, abbreviations like 'Jatim', fuzzy matching), which clarifies semantics beyond the schema's example list. With only one parameter, the baseline is high.

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: converting region names to BPS domain codes. It specifies the exact action ('Konversi') and resource ('nama wilayah ke kode domain BPS'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on domain resolution rather than searching, listing, or retrieving data like other tools.

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 context by mentioning support for official names, abbreviations, and fuzzy matching, suggesting it's for flexible domain lookup. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_domains' or 'search', nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.

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