Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what constitutes 'details' (though output schema exists). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. The two-sentence structure is efficient with zero wasted words. However, the formatting with 'Args:' on a separate line is slightly less optimal than integrating parameter information more seamlessly into the description flow.

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's moderate complexity (2 required parameters), zero annotation coverage, but presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. The output schema existence means return values documentation isn't needed, but other gaps remain for a tool that likely requires specific permissions and has operational 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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds crucial parameter information that the schema lacks. The Args section clearly explains what 'instance_id' and 'project_id' represent, providing semantic meaning beyond the schema's bare type declarations. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't provide format examples 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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('analytics instance's details'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_analytics_instances' (plural) or 'get_analytics_instance_status', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this specific retrieval tool versus others.

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 sibling tools like 'get_analytics_instances' (list all instances) and 'get_analytics_instance_status' (get status specifically), the agent receives no help in choosing between these similar retrieval operations. The description merely states what the tool does without contextual usage information.

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