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. It implies a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't specify if it's safe, requires permissions, has rate limits, or describes output format. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic action, failing to compensate for lack of annotations, resulting in a score of 2.

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 and front-loaded, with the main purpose stated first in a clear sentence, followed by a concise parameter explanation. There's no wasted text, but the structure could be slightly improved by integrating the Args more seamlessly, keeping it efficient but not perfect.

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. It covers the basic action and parameter, but lacks behavioral details and usage guidelines. With no annotations, it should do more to be fully complete, scoring 3 as the minimum viable.

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%, but the description includes an 'Args' section that documents the single parameter 'project_id' as 'The project's numeric ID.' This adds meaning beyond the schema's basic type, providing semantic context. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, so it meets the baseline of 3 without fully compensating for low coverage.

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 as 'Get all setpoints in a project,' specifying the verb 'Get' and resource 'setpoints' with scope 'in a project.' It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_setpoint_status' (status vs. all setpoints) and 'write_setpoint' (write vs. read), though not explicitly. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, keeping it at 4 rather than 5.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions, such as when to prefer 'get_setpoint_status' for status checks or 'write_setpoint' for modifications. This leaves the agent without usage direction, scoring 2 for minimal guidance.

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