Aedifion MCP Server

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full disclosure burden. It only specifies ISO 8601 format for date parameters. Missing: read-only confirmation, rate limits, data volume expectations, return structure, or error behaviors despite being a data retrieval tool.

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?

Uses compressed 'Args:' format which is information-dense but front-loads the purpose statement appropriately. No wasted prose, though the parameter list format is cramped and could integrate better with the schema.

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?

Lacking annotations, output schema, and with minimal parameter documentation (especially for units_system), the description is insufficient for confident invocation. No indication of what monitoring data fields are returned or time range limits.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description compensates by documenting expected formats (numeric ID, ISO 8601) for 3 of 4 parameters, but 'units_system' is documented only tautologically ('Unit system') without valid values 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?

States specific verb (Get) and resource (technical monitoring data) with project scope, but fails to differentiate from similar siblings like get_energy_efficiency or get_operational_optimization, making selection ambiguous.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many similar data retrieval siblings (get_analytics_kpi_overview, get_project_datapoints, etc.) or prerequisites like required permissions.

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