Aedifion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure but only states 'Get'. It fails to clarify if this is a cached operation, if it returns large datasets requiring pagination, or any authentication requirements specific to listing apps.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. However, it lacks front-loaded context that could help distinguish this from sibling operations given the tool-rich domain.

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?

Incomplete for a complex domain with many siblings (instances, components, analytics). Without an output schema or annotations, the description should explain what constitutes a 'controls app', its relationship to instances, or the return format, but provides none of this context.

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 input schema contains zero parameters, establishing a baseline score per the rubric. The description appropriately implies no filtering or identification parameters are needed.

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?

Clearly states the action (Get) and resource (controls apps) with scope (all available). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool `get_controls_app` (singular), which likely retrieves a specific app by ID.

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 alternatives like `get_controls_instance` or `get_controls_app`, nor does it mention prerequisites or filtering capabilities.

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