Aedifion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does ('Get all saved plot views') without mentioning any behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires specific permissions, what format the results come in, or if there are pagination/rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably returns data.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Both sentences earn their place by providing essential information without redundancy. The only minor improvement would be integrating the parameter info 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 an output schema exists (which handles return values), the description covers the basic purpose and parameter. However, for a data retrieval tool with no annotations, it lacks important context about behavioral aspects like permissions, response format details beyond the schema, or error conditions. The presence of an output schema raises the baseline but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral transparency.

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 documents the single parameter 'project_id' with a brief explanation ('The project's numeric ID'). With 0% schema description coverage, this adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type information. However, it doesn't provide additional details like valid ID ranges or examples, keeping it at baseline adequacy.

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 action ('Get all saved plot views') and the target resource ('for a project'), providing specific verb+resource pairing. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_plot_view' or 'delete_plot_view' beyond the obvious action difference, which prevents a perfect score.

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. There are no explicit statements about when/when-not to use it, nor references to sibling tools like 'get_project_components' or 'get_project_datapoints' that might serve similar purposes for different data types.

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