Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Fails to disclose side effects, uniqueness constraints on project names, what the output schema returns, or permission requirements. Only states the basic creation action.

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?

Brief and front-loaded. The 'Args:' format is slightly unconventional for MCP but efficiently documents the two parameters without excessive verbosity. No wasted sentences.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not indicate what data is returned (e.g., project ID, full object). For a creation tool with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, lacks critical context about success behavior, error conditions, and constraints.

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 description compensates by providing 'Project name' and 'Project description' labels. However, it omits that description defaults to null (optional) and provides no format constraints or validation rules for name.

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 'Create a new project in the company' with clear verb and resource. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling creation tools like create_task or create_logbook, though 'project' specificity provides implicit differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites (e.g., permissions, company existence). Does not mention that name is required while description is optional.

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