Aedifion MCP Server

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

Annotations are absent, yet description provides no behavioral context beyond argument listing. Does not indicate this is a safe read-only operation (important given destructive siblings exist), disclose pagination limits, or explain error conditions.

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?

Docstring-style Args block is efficiently structured. First sentence establishes purpose; subsequent lines map parameters. No redundant prose, though slightly mechanical.

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?

Covers required parameter (project_id) and pagination options. Output schema is present so return values need not be described, but lacks usage context and behavioral safety disclosure needed for a tool among many project-related mutations.

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 coverage, description compensates by documenting all 3 parameters in the Args block. Justification for integer/null union on pagination params would strengthen this, but basic semantics are covered.

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?

States specific action (Get) and resource (components) with scope (in a project). Distinguishes from global `get_components` via project scoping, but does not clarify difference from singular `get_project_component`.

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 on when to use versus `get_project_component` or `get_components`. No explanation of pagination strategy or default behavior when page/per_page are omitted.

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