Aedifion 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. 'Add a comment' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required permissions, whether comments are editable/deletable, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. This leaves significant gaps for a mutation tool.

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 sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The 'Args:' section is structured but could be more integrated. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more polished (e.g., merging the Args into a single cohesive paragraph).

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 a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context, usage guidelines, and error handling. The output schema may help with return values, but overall completeness is limited for safe tool invocation.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds basic semantics ('task_id: The task ID', 'text: Comment text'), which clarifies what each parameter represents. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., task ID format, text constraints), leaving some ambiguity. This partial compensation warrants a baseline score.

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 action ('Add a comment') and target resource ('to a task'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'add_project_comment' or 'delete_task_comment', which would require specifying this is specifically for task comments versus project comments or deletion operations.

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 like 'add_project_comment' or 'delete_task_comment'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid task ID) or constraints (e.g., comment length limits). The agent must infer usage from context alone.

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