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 does not explain what 'status' means (e.g., running, stopped, error states), what the response format looks like, or whether errors are thrown for invalid IDs.

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 first sentence is appropriately concise. However, the 'Args:' block uses Python docstring formatting which is suboptimal for MCP tool descriptions; parameter semantics should be integrated into natural language or rely on well-documented schemas.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter read operation without an output schema, the description is minimally sufficient to invoke the tool, though it lacks important context about the controls domain (what status values to expect, relationship to instance lifecycle).

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%, requiring the description to compensate. The Args section offers tautological descriptions ('The instance ID' for instance_id) with only marginal value (noting project_id is 'numeric'). It fails to explain acceptable ID formats or how to obtain valid instance IDs.

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 a specific verb (Get) and resource (status of a controls instance) clearly matching the tool name. However, it fails to differentiate from sibling tool 'get_controls_instance' which likely retrieves full instance metadata versus just status.

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 'get_controls_instance' or other related siblings. No mention of prerequisites, error conditions, or typical usage patterns.

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