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 discloses the fallback behavior to AllStats Search Engine, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, response format, pagination, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for a search tool with no structured safety hints.

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 with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and fallback mechanism. It's front-loaded with the main function and avoids unnecessary details, though it could be slightly more structured for clarity.

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 incomplete. It covers the search scope and fallback but misses critical behavioral aspects like response format, error handling, and usage context compared to siblings. For a search tool with 4 parameters and no structured safety info, this leaves the agent under-informed.

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 fully documents parameters. The description adds minimal value by mentioning search across types and fallback, but doesn't elaborate on parameter usage beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 searches across data types in BPS using WebAPI with fallback to AllStats Search Engine. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'data across types' but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'allstats_search' or 'allstats_deep_search' beyond mentioning fallback behavior.

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 for cross-type searches and mentions automatic fallback to AllStats Search Engine when WebAPI yields no results. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'allstats_search' or specific get_* tools, nor does it specify exclusions or prerequisites.

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