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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, error conditions, or what the output contains. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. The parameter explanations are brief and directly relevant. There's no wasted text, though the structure could be slightly improved by integrating parameter details more seamlessly rather than as a separate 'Args:' section.

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's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low schema coverage, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidance. For a simple read tool with output schema support, it's adequate but has clear gaps in transparency and guidelines.

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 descriptions for parameters. The description adds minimal semantics by naming the parameters ('project_id', 'datapoint_id') and briefly stating their purpose ('The project's numeric ID', 'The datapoint identifier'), but doesn't elaborate on formats, constraints, or examples. This partially compensates but leaves gaps, aligning with the baseline 3 when schema coverage is low.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('usage information for a datapoint') with a clarifying parenthetical ('where it's referenced'). It distinguishes from obvious siblings like 'get_datapoint' (which retrieves the datapoint itself) and 'get_datapoint_timeseries' (which retrieves time-series data). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all sibling 'get_' tools, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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 tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or what 'usage information' entails (e.g., references in logs, alerts, or components). It simply states what it does without context for selection among many 'get_' tools.

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