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 'Get details,' which implies a read-only operation but does not specify authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' include. This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 brief purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. It uses bullet points for parameters, making it easy to scan. However, the parameter explanations could be more detailed given the lack of schema descriptions.

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 is an output schema (which handles return values), the description's main gaps are in usage guidelines and behavioral transparency. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks context on when to use it, error handling, or performance traits. This is minimally adequate but with clear gaps.

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 adds minimal semantics: it explains 'project_id' as 'The project's numeric ID' and 'datapoint_id' as 'The datapoint identifier (hash key or alternate key).' This clarifies the nature of the IDs but does not fully compensate for the coverage gap, as it lacks format examples or constraints.

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 details about a specific datapoint.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('datapoint'), but does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_datapoints' or 'get_datapoint_timeseries', which also retrieve datapoint-related information. The purpose is clear but lacks 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 does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. For example, it does not clarify if this is for retrieving metadata versus timeseries data, or when to use it over 'get_project_datapoints' for listing multiple datapoints.

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