Aedifion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but merely restates the destructive nature implied by the tool name. It omits critical behavioral details: whether deletion is permanent, if it affects historical data, cascade effects on associated systems, or what the output schema returns.

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?

Extremely concise at three lines. The Args format is functional but reads like API documentation rather than a natural language description; front-loading the behavioral implications before the parameter list would improve structure.

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?

Adequate for a simple two-parameter deletion tool given that an output schema exists separately. However, it lacks context on whether setpoint IDs are globally unique or project-scoped, and whether the deletion is synchronous or queued.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the Args section provides essential documentation for both parameters. However, the descriptions are minimal ('The project's numeric ID', 'The setpoint ID') and could clarify the hierarchical relationship (e.g., that setpoint_id exists within the scope of project_id).

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 specific verb (Delete) and resource (setpoint), making the core action unambiguous. However, it fails to distinguish from sibling `write_setpoint` (which may update values) or clarify if this permanently removes the setpoint versus disabling it.

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 alternatives like `write_setpoint`, or prerequisites such as checking the setpoint status first. No mention of permissions or if the setpoint must be inactive before deletion.

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