Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'Get details' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. The description lacks critical behavioral context needed for safe and effective use.

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 concise with two sentences: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. It's front-loaded with the main intent. However, the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly, and there's some redundancy in stating the parameter name twice.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), a single parameter, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It states the purpose and parameter meaning but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral context, and differentiation from siblings. For a simple read operation, it meets basic needs but leaves significant gaps for an agent to infer correct usage.

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 no parameter descriptions. The description adds minimal value: it states 'function_id: The analysis function identifier,' which clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't explain format, constraints, or where to obtain valid IDs. This partially compensates for the schema gap but remains insufficient for full understanding.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get details of a specific analysis function.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('analysis function'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_analytics_functions' or 'get_analytics_instance', which could cause confusion about when to use each.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_analytics_functions' (plural) and 'get_analytics_instance', an agent wouldn't know whether this is for retrieving metadata about analysis functions versus their instances or results. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison context is mentioned.

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