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 status information returns. The description provides minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation type.

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 brief and structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. There's no unnecessary information, and the two-sentence format is efficient. However, the parameter explanations could be more informative while maintaining conciseness.

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), no annotations, and only 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, the description provides basic purpose and parameter names. It's minimally adequate but lacks context about what 'status' entails, usage scenarios, or behavioral details. For a simple read operation, it meets minimum viability but has clear gaps.

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 includes an 'Args' section that names both parameters (project_id, setpoint_id) and provides brief explanations ('The project's numeric ID', 'The setpoint ID'), adding some semantic value. However, it doesn't explain what these IDs represent, where to find them, or provide format examples. This partially compensates for the schema gap but not fully.

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 states 'Get the status of a setpoint' which is a clear verb+resource combination, but it's quite generic. It doesn't specify what 'status' means in this context or differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_project_setpoints' or 'write_setpoint'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or distinguish it from related tools like 'get_project_setpoints' (which might list setpoints) or 'write_setpoint' (which modifies setpoints). The agent receives no usage direction.

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