Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Create' implies mutation, the description omits critical details: whether creation is idempotent, if the instance is enabled automatically (vs requiring 'enable_controls_instance'), required permissions, or error conditions.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The 'Args' format, while slightly verbose, clearly maps parameters to their semantics without redundant prose. No sentences waste space on tautology or generic filler.

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?

For a creation tool with zero schema annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It lacks explanation of what constitutes a 'controls instance', what the operation returns (e.g., the created instance ID), or side effects on the system state.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by providing critical type information: 'project_id' is specified as a 'numeric ID' (clarifying the integer type) and 'instance_config' is identified as a 'JSON string' (crucial since the schema only lists 'string'). However, it fails to describe the expected structure or required fields within the JSON configuration.

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?

States a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('controls instance'), providing clear identification. However, it fails to distinguish from the similar sibling 'create_analytics_instance' or clarify what distinguishes a 'controls' instance from other instance types.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this versus 'update_controls_instance', prerequisites for creation (e.g., existing project), or when to prefer this over 'create_analytics_instance'. The 'Args' format documents parameters but does not explain usage context.

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