Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Adds valuable context by specifying 'current user' (indicating auth-scoped access) and 'including projects and users' (disclosing data richness/nesting). However, lacks details on caching, rate limits, or permissions required.

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?

Extremely concise at 9 words. Single sentence front-loaded with action verb ('Get'). No redundant words; every term adds specificity (current user, projects, users).

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?

Appropriate for a simple getter with 0 parameters and existing output schema. The description efficiently conveys the tool's scope without needing to document return values. Minor gap: could explicitly contrast with update_company or delete_company_user to clarify read-only nature.

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?

Zero parameters with 100% schema coverage (empty object). Per rubric, 0 params = baseline 4. Description appropriately omits parameter details since none exist.

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?

Clear verb (Get) + resource (company details) and scope (current user). Distinguishes from siblings like get_company_user (singular) and get_company_roles by mentioning it includes 'projects and users' (plural), suggesting a comprehensive company object return rather than specific aspects.

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?

Provides implied usage context—use this for retrieving the current user's company overview with nested projects and users. However, lacks explicit guidance on when to prefer this over specific getters like get_company_user, get_company_roles, or get_project, and doesn't mention prerequisites like authentication.

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