Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' encompass (e.g., basic metadata vs. full configuration). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise with two sentences: a clear purpose statement and a parameter explanation. It's front-loaded with the main functionality. The structure is efficient, though the parameter documentation could be integrated 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 the tool's low complexity (single parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, it should provide more context about behavioral aspects like permissions or error handling to be fully complete for agent use.

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 documentation. The description adds minimal semantics by specifying 'project_id: The project's numeric ID,' clarifying the parameter's purpose and type. However, it doesn't explain format constraints, valid ranges, or where to obtain this ID, leaving some ambiguity.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a project's details'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_comments' or 'get_project_components', which also retrieve project-related information but focus on specific aspects rather than general details.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_project_comments' or 'get_project_tasks' that retrieve specific project data, there's no indication whether this tool returns comprehensive details or if it should be preferred over more targeted queries. The only implied usage is needing a project ID.

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