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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description discloses nothing about data freshness, calculation triggers, caching behavior, or the structure of the returned overview.

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 front-loaded with the purpose statement followed by an Args section. No redundant text is present, though extreme brevity contributes to gaps in behavioral and contextual completeness.

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 rich sibling tool context (many analytics KPI variants) and lack of output schema, the description fails to clarify what distinguishes a 'high-level overview' from component-level or aggregated KPIs, leaving tool selection ambiguous.

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 compensates by documenting the sole parameter ('project_id: The project's numeric ID'). While minimal, this provides the necessary semantic context missing from the schema properties.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('high-level KPI overview') with clear scope ('for a project'). The 'high-level' qualifier adds meaningful scope but does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like `get_analytics_components_kpi` or `get_analytics_kpi_aggregation`.

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 versus the numerous sibling analytics tools (e.g., `get_analytics_components_kpi`, `get_analytics_kpi_aggregation`). No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned despite the crowded tool namespace.

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