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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what format the permissions are returned in. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another explaining the parameter. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. There's minimal waste, though the 'Args:' section could be integrated more smoothly.

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 has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low complexity, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about the system's permission model or how this tool fits with siblings, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage correctly.

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 adds the parameter 'project_id' with clarification that it's 'The project's numeric ID', which provides useful semantic context beyond the schema's basic type (integer). With 0% schema description coverage and only 1 parameter, this compensates adequately, though it could mention format constraints or examples.

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 ('permissions configured for a project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_company_permissions' or 'get_user_permissions', which would be needed for 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 like 'get_company_permissions' or 'get_user_permissions'. It also doesn't mention prerequisites such as required permissions or context about what 'permissions' entail in this system.

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