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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves data ('Get'), implying it's a read operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like permissions required, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. There's no wasted language, and it's front-loaded with the main action. However, the lack of usage guidelines or behavioral details means it could be more informative without sacrificing brevity.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values), the description doesn't need to explain outputs. However, with no annotations and low schema coverage, it should compensate more by detailing usage context and behavioral traits. It adequately covers the basic purpose and parameters but falls short on guidelines and transparency, making it minimally viable.

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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'project_id: The project's numeric ID' and 'cip_id: The component-in-project ID,' which clarifies what these IDs represent. However, it doesn't provide details like valid ranges or examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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 tool's purpose: 'Get all pin mappings for a component in a project.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('pin mappings for a component in a project'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_component_pin_definitions' or 'map_component_pin', which could cause confusion about scope.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as whether the component must exist in the project, or compare it to related tools like 'get_component_pin_definitions' (which might define pins) or 'map_component_pin' (which might create mappings). This lack of context could lead to misuse.

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