Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden of behavioral disclosure. Fails to indicate whether this is read-only (though implied), what scope 'all labels' covers (global vs. user-accessible), or whether results are paginated. Context signals indicate output schema exists, but description doesn't hint at return structure.

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 single sentence with no wasted words. Front-loaded with action verb. Appropriate length for a parameterless getter tool.

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?

Adequate for low-complexity tool (no params, output schema exists), but minimal. Given the rich label ecosystem visible in siblings (get_label_definitions, get_label_systems), description should clarify whether this returns label assignments on the company entity or available label definitions within the company scope.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters with 100% coverage. Per scoring rules, zero parameters establishes a baseline of 4. Description appropriately implies no filtering is possible by stating 'all labels'.

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?

States specific verb ('Get') and resource ('labels assigned to the company'). Distinguishes from sibling tools like get_project_labels and get_datapoint_labels by scoping to 'company' level. However, lacks clarity on what 'labels' represent (metadata tags vs. classification labels) and whether this returns assignments or definitions.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_label_definitions (which likely returns available label types) or get_project_labels. Does not mention that no parameters are required, which contrasts with most sibling getter tools that require IDs.

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