Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, and the description omits critical behavioral details: it does not specify the aggregation method, time range, read-only nature, pagination behavior, or what constitutes a 'component' in this context.

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 brief, but the 'Args' section is redundant with the JSON schema and wastes space restating the single parameter name. The information could be integrated more efficiently without the pseudo-docstring format.

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 an analytics tool with complex output (implied by 'KPI results'), the description is inadequate. It lacks output format details, component definition, KPI enumeration, and time-range specifications that would be necessary for effective agent use.

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 carries the full burden of parameter documentation. The 'Args' section adds minimal semantic value by specifying 'numeric ID' for project_id, but lacks details on how to obtain the ID, valid ranges, or constraints.

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 identifies the action (Get), resource (aggregated KPI results), and scope (per component). However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tools like get_analytics_kpi_aggregation and get_analytics_kpi_overview, leaving ambiguity about when to prefer this endpoint.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the similar KPI-related siblings (get_analytics_kpi_aggregation, get_analytics_kpi_overview) or what prerequisites (like an existing analytics instance) might be required.

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