Aedifion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Delete' implies a destructive operation, the description doesn't specify whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, or has side effects. For a destructive tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate transparency.

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 brief with a clear action statement followed by parameter documentation. The two-sentence structure is efficient, though the Args formatting could be more integrated. There's no unnecessary verbiage, earning a high conciseness score.

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 destructive operation with 2 parameters at 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete. While an output schema exists (which reduces the need to describe return values), the description fails to address critical aspects like deletion consequences, permissions, or error conditions that an agent needs to use this tool safely and effectively.

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 only types without meaning. The description's Args section names the parameters but adds minimal semantic value - it doesn't explain what a 'datapoint' is, how to obtain IDs, or the relationship between project and datapoint. This doesn't sufficiently compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 ('Delete') and resource ('a datapoint'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delete_project_timeseries' or 'delete_setpoint' that also delete different types of data, so it doesn't reach the highest clarity level.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when deletion is appropriate, or what happens after deletion. With multiple deletion tools in the sibling list, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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