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 behavioral disclosure. It states 'Get' suggesting read-only behavior, but fails to disclose auth requirements, rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid project_id), or the structure/format of returned data. The term 'controls instances' is also not defined.

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 brief with no redundant text. The Args section format is clear and scannable. However, it could benefit from a single sentence explaining that results are paginated before jumping to the argument list.

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 zero annotations, no output schema, and minimal parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It provides no information about return value structure, entity relationships, or behavioral side effects, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent attempting to invoke this tool 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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage (only titles present), the Args section successfully documents all three parameters with basic semantic meaning: project_id is 'numeric', page is 'Page number', and per_page clarifies 'Items per page'. This compensates for the schema deficiency, though it lacks detail on pagination mechanics (e.g., null behavior).

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 states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('controls instances') with scope ('in a project'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it fails to distinguish from the sibling tool 'get_controls_instance' (singular), which likely retrieves a specific instance rather than a list.

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 is provided on when to use this list endpoint versus the singular 'get_controls_instance', nor does it explain pagination strategies (e.g., when to paginate vs requesting all items). The Args section documents parameters but offers no usage context.

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