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. It mentions pagination parameters (page, per_page) which implies a paginated response, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what authentication is required, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens when parameters are null/default. The description is minimal and leaves critical behavior unspecified.

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 minimal waste, though the parameter explanations could be more integrated rather than listed separately.

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 that an output schema exists (which should document return values), the description doesn't need to explain return format. However, for a tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, and no annotations, the description provides basic purpose and parameter semantics but lacks important context about authentication, error handling, pagination behavior with null values, and differentiation from sibling tools.

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 basic semantics for all three parameters (project_id, page, per_page), explaining what each represents. However, it doesn't provide format details (e.g., numeric ID format), constraints (e.g., valid page ranges), or explain what happens with null/default values for page/per_page, leaving gaps in 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 verb 'Get' and resource 'all analytics instances in a project', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'get_analytics_instance' (singular) or 'get_analytics_instance_status', leaving some ambiguity about when to use this list tool versus individual instance tools.

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 siblings like 'get_analytics_instance' (singular), 'get_analytics_instances' (plural), and 'get_analytics_instance_status', there's clear potential for confusion, but the description offers no comparison or context about appropriate use cases.

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