Aedifion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, placing full burden on the description. While 'Get' implies read-only safety, the description fails to disclose whether this calculates data in real-time or retrieves cached reports, what constitutes 'energy efficiency' in this domain, valid values for units_system, or error conditions for invalid date ranges.

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 Python-docstring style with an Args block is appropriate given the schema's lack of descriptions, though it creates a hybrid narrative/reference format. The first sentence establishes purpose quickly, and the Args section is necessary given context, avoiding verbosity while ensuring all 4 parameters are documented.

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 schema coverage and four parameters, the description achieves minimum viability by documenting all inputs. However, it lacks domain context (what the energy efficiency analysis calculates) and omits guidance on the output format despite having no output schema. Just adequate for the complexity level.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the Args block provides crucial semantic meaning: project_id is clarified as 'numeric ID', start/end specify 'ISO 8601 format' (critical for string parameters), and units_system is identified as a unit system. This effectively compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 clear verb ('Get') and resource ('energy efficiency analysis data') scoped to 'a project'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_project (general metadata) and get_analytics_instance_result (computational results) by focusing on energy efficiency specifically.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_operational_optimization or get_technical_monitoring. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned despite the date range parameters implying temporal analysis requirements.

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