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 only states what the tool does ('Get analytics results') without describing any behavioral traits such as permissions required, rate limits, response format, pagination, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 sized and front-loaded: the first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by a parameter list. There's no unnecessary verbosity. However, the parameter explanations are very brief and could be more informative, slightly reducing efficiency.

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 complexity (4 parameters, 2 required), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'analytics results' entail, how they're returned, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool with no structured support, this leaves significant gaps for an agent to use it correctly.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description lists the parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'The component-in-project ID'), which adds some meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap—it lacks details on formats, constraints, or examples for parameters like 'units_system' and 'currency_system', which are nullable strings.

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 analytics results for a specific component in a project.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('analytics results'), and scope ('specific component in a project'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_analytics_instance_result' or 'get_analytics_components_kpi', which appear related, so it doesn't fully achieve sibling differentiation.

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, context, or exclusions, nor does it reference any of the many sibling tools that might be related (e.g., other analytics or component tools). This leaves the agent with no usage context beyond the basic purpose.

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