Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's read-only, but doesn't confirm this explicitly. It doesn't describe error conditions (e.g., invalid project_id), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what happens if the project lacks location data. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 and well-structured. The first sentence clearly states the purpose, followed by an 'Args:' section that lists parameters with brief explanations. There's no unnecessary information, and it's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the 'Args:' formatting could be slightly more polished, but it remains efficient.

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 there's an output schema (which handles return values) and no annotations, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameters but lacks usage guidelines, detailed behavioral context, and differentiation from siblings. For a tool with 2 parameters and 0% schema coverage, the description does the minimum to be functional but leaves significant gaps in guiding an AI agent effectively.

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 descriptions. The description adds some value by explaining 'project_id: The project's numeric ID' and 'units_system: Unit system (e.g., 'SI')', giving basic semantics for both parameters. However, it doesn't clarify the format of 'units_system' beyond an example (e.g., are other values like 'imperial' allowed?), and it doesn't explain the default behavior when 'units_system' is null. This partially compensates for the schema gap but leaves ambiguities.

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: 'Get current weather for a project's location.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('weather for a project's location'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'get_project_weather_forecast', which suggests a similar weather-related function but for forecasts rather than current conditions.

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 the sibling 'get_project_weather_forecast' or explain the difference between current weather and forecast data. There's also no information about prerequisites, such as whether the project must exist or have a valid location configured.

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