Aedifion MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but offers minimal behavioral insight. It implies a write operation ('Map') but doesn't disclose permissions needed, side effects, idempotency, or what happens if the mapping already exists. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a parameter list. However, the parameter section is redundant with the schema and adds no value, slightly reducing efficiency. Overall, it's concise but could be more structured.

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?

For a 4-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema coverage, and an output schema (which helps but isn't described), the description is insufficient. It lacks behavioral details, parameter explanations, and usage context, making it incomplete for safe and effective tool invocation.

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 lists parameter names but adds no semantic meaning—it doesn't explain what 'cip_id' or 'datapoint_id' represent, their formats, or relationships. This fails to compensate for the schema gap.

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 action ('Map') and the resources involved ('component pin' to 'datapoint'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'unmap_component_pin' or explain what 'mapping' entails in this context, preventing 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, prerequisites, or constraints. It doesn't mention the sibling 'unmap_component_pin' for reversing mappings or other related tools like 'get_component_pins', leaving the agent with no usage context.

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