Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. Beyond stating 'Get', offers no details on read-only safety, error handling (invalid project_id), rate limits, data freshness, or return format. Assumes standard read behavior without confirming.

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 compact (2 sentences). Purpose statement is front-loaded, followed by Args section. No wasted words, though brevity is excessive given lack of annotations and output schema—slightly more context would be justified without hurting conciseness.

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?

With only 1 parameter and no output schema, the description covers minimum viable ground: what it does and the parameter meaning. Missing: nature of compliance data returned, relationship to sibling monitoring/efficiency tools, and error scenarios. Adequate but minimal.

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 has 0% description coverage (no 'description' fields in properties). The Args section documents project_id as 'The project's numeric ID', providing essential semantics missing from schema. Compensates for schema gap but lacks constraint details or value examples.

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 (compliance data for a project). Distinguishes from sibling 'get_project' and other getters by specifying 'compliance' domain, though could clarify what type of compliance (regulatory, technical, etc.) for full distinction.

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 on when to use versus alternatives like get_project or get_technical_monitoring. No mention of prerequisites (e.g., project existence checks) or conditions where this should be preferred over other project data retrieval tools.

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