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 the tool 'Get timeseries data,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or data format. For a tool with 10 parameters, this lack of context 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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by a bulleted list of parameters. It avoids unnecessary fluff and each sentence serves a purpose. However, the parameter explanations could be more concise (e.g., combining similar parameters), and it lacks a concluding summary.

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 tool's complexity (10 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but misses behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely handles return values, so that gap is acceptable. Overall, it's adequate but has clear room for improvement in guiding the agent.

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 description includes an 'Args:' section that lists all 10 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Start time in ISO 8601 format,' 'Resample interval'). Since schema description coverage is 0%, this adds substantial value beyond the schema, which only provides titles and types. However, it doesn't detail default behaviors or constraints (e.g., valid values for 'interpolation'), keeping it from a perfect score.

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 timeseries data for a single datapoint.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('timeseries data for a single datapoint'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_timeseries' or 'get_datapoint', which might retrieve different scopes of data.

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 lacks context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid project_id and datapoint_id), and doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_project_timeseries' for broader queries or 'get_datapoint' for non-timeseries data. This omission could lead to confusion in tool selection.

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