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. It only states the action ('Get results') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, data format, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, this leaves significant behavioral gaps. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none provided).

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a parameter list. However, the parameter explanations are terse and could be more integrated. It avoids redundancy but under-specifies key aspects, leaning toward brevity at the expense of clarity.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format, error conditions, or how parameters interact (e.g., if start/end are null). For a data-fetching tool in a complex analytics context, this leaves the agent with insufficient information to use it 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 description must compensate. It lists parameters with brief notes (e.g., 'Start time in ISO 8601 format'), but doesn't explain semantics like what 'units_system' or 'currency_system' entail, valid ranges for IDs, or how null values for optional parameters affect results. This adds minimal value beyond the schema's titles.

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 states the tool 'Get results for an analytics instance', which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'results' specifically means (e.g., metrics, reports, status) and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_analytics_instance_status' or 'get_analytics_components_kpi'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling analytics tools (e.g., get_analytics_instance, get_analytics_instance_status, get_analytics_components_kpi), the description offers no context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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