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. While 'Set' implies a write/mutation operation, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this overwrites existing renamings, error conditions, or what the output contains. The description is too minimal 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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, and it's appropriately front-loaded with the main functionality.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, but with an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks behavioral context (like side effects or error handling) that would be crucial for safe usage. The output schema reduces the need to describe return values.

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 description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for both parameters: 'project_id' is clarified as 'numeric ID', and 'renamings' is explained as a 'JSON string with renaming mappings' including the structure ('list of {dataPointID, alternateKey}'). This goes well beyond the bare schema, though it could specify JSON format details for a perfect score.

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 ('Set alternate keys') and resource ('for datapoints in a project'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar-sounding siblings like 'update_datapoint' or 'get_datapoint_labels', which would be needed for 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. With many sibling tools related to datapoints and projects (e.g., 'update_datapoint', 'get_datapoint_labels'), there's no indication of prerequisites, typical use cases, or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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